EWEB Board of Commissioners — November 4, 2025

0:07 safety and awareness thing that used to go up there. There we go. Take a look up there. This is what we expect of you. Uh the court of uh everything you need to know except for what I'm going to read right now, which is excuse me, I will read when we go into public comment. So, we start off our meeting with an agenda check. Anybody have any additions or subtractions from the agenda at this point? [clears throat] Okay, we'll go on to two items from board members and general manager. We will start with Mindy.

0:55 Um well we'll talk about this later but I attended our joint meeting with the city of Eugene with you President Barovski and then also this is maybe some something about correspond I'll save the next thing for correspondence. >> Okay >> that's all. >> Commissioner Morris. >> Uh nothing for me. Thank you. >> Sonia >> had a lovely time attending the trunk or treat. glad that we put that on and I think the community really appreciated it. Thanks. >> All right. And for myself, I also uh attended Truck Treat. I was a squirrel with Ew Webb hard hat and vest. It went over well. The little kids seem to like it. Uh kudos for staff being able to

1:42 transform that from a being outside on a f stormy Friday night to being inside in in a matter of 48 hours. That's herculean. Um it was well attended and wellreceived. Thank you for everybody that made that pivot happen. Um, I also had the opportunity to do a tour of the Quartz Creek stage zero restoration that Ew Webb was a pivotal part in uh helping to get get off the ground. There was a na a fairly significant Noah grant that helped do it, but there was an easement that EU that Eb went into to help get

2:27 the top half of that um under contract for the next 50 years. So that that is going to remain uh a very nice wild tributary of the McKenzie River. Uh almost a million dollars worth of wood went into it. If you go up there, it doesn't look anything like Quartz Creek looked like before. This should help hopefully with our uh drinking water. Uh it's a source protection project. So, it was a bunch of partners that came together, Miss Kenzie Watershed Council, Upper Soil and Water Thing, Noah, Forest Service, McKenzie River Trust, all of them. So, I would suggest it's it's an easy it's an easy one to see. You don't

3:12 even have to get out of your car. If you go up to the to the Fin Rock boat landing and cross over and go up for a mile, it's all all off to the right and it's it's incredible. So, I would uh have you guys take a look at that. But other than that, that's all I have. Comm Mr. Lawson, >> you almost called me commissioner, didn't you? >> I almost did. >> Yeah. Well, I appreciate that. Um I um did want to commend staff for the agility on the trick-or- treat. Um as Oregonians, we're not afraid of rain per se. um except when lightning gets involved. We did not want to electrocute any any kids and so really appreciate staff's ability to be agile with that and and your attendance. I also wanted to thank commissioners for those who were available to attend the the tour of

3:58 international paper um and um all the uh information that they supplied to us on the the partnership that they have um and the impact that we have on them and they have on us. And so I wanted to appreciate that. Um, and it's it is really an extension of a number of things that that I've been doing recently as far as visiting some of our key accounts. Um, people like Snowtemp. Um, today I visited Pacific Recycling. Um, all of these have the opportunity to help us shape energy use. Uh, look at energy efficiency, time of use, a number of those things. And so, um, really appreciate staff setting those up. Um the the final thing I I wanted to talk about today is is that we do know that there are certain members in our community that are going through a pretty hard time. Um there have been um

4:45 some impacts on LI he for example the limited assistance home home energy assistance program um SNAP as well um a number of issues with um federal employment. And so, um, as staff, we've been evaluating and look to looking to implement certain aspect, certain, um, uh, actions or opportunities where we could, uh, help our community out. And so, I was going to ask, uh, Deborah and Julie to kind of run through the roster of things that we're looking at to be sensitive to that and help our community. >> All right. Thank you, uh, Frank. I did just want to start with let you all know that ECC has remained open without any

5:30 service gaps since April 1st and that's for that $280 bill credit for eligible customers. Um we have eShare or crisis funds that are available to customers who are impacted by job loss or other special circumstances. It can be accessed more than once a year and CSAs are actively offering this option to folks. We're also working to proactively apply the $280 ECC credit to recipients of LI HEA who have yet to apply for ECC. So folks that have li heed but haven't accessed our uh our

6:16 program, we're about 3 four weeks out to being able to finish that work. And customers would then be eligible for ECC again in January. And then lastly, our CSAs do have um a list of community resources that they can refer our customers to for assistance beyond their utility bill. >> It's not all right. Yeah. But part of the the reason commissioners that we're looking is at this is we know that some of these have timing issues, temporary suspensions. Uh for example, Lie Hap um their most vulnerable customers uh

7:02 typically start uh registering in November and December. And so uh we've looked to accelerate and modify our programs to be able to uh help ride that through when and where possible. And so, um, just wanted to let you know we we are looking at various options as we go forward. We'll continue to to adjust, um, and, u meetings. Um, I know we have a number of check-ins and so, uh, we're open to various ideas that that we can continue to help our community out. So, thank you. Tim. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not I'm unsure if I can ask questions in this portion, but um so uh the e-share and crisis funds uh

7:47 Deborah you mentioned impacted by job loss or other circumstances. Would that include losing SNAP benefits uh lie benefits or uh federal government workers who are not receiving paychecks? >> Yes. So that's a really flexible program that allows us to more immediately reach people who are maybe just even in temporary crisis. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Hey, anybody else? Thank you all. Uh, our next agenda item is public input.

8:32 sent to us in our packet. Sonia, >> I wanted to thank staff for looking into the constituent um concern about uh the role that we have in in court code enforcement and public safety um disconnection requests. It looks like we have a path to an analyzing that and I just wanted to appreciate um that staff are looking at that and that the it does sign that there's some potential action that we should take in the future depending on how that all goes. So, thank you for that, >> Mindy. Yeah, I just want to comment on the um executive recruitment timeline that was given to us and I know we all filled out a doodle poll and I did too, but seeing it on the calendar that there's nine

9:19 days that we need to set aside in the month of January and there's like 19 total work days, that's a lot of days. Um I know we don't know how much of that we're going to need to use until we know who we're interviewing, but that That's a lot of uh work time that we have to give and not everybody has a flexible well I don't have such a flexible job schedule I'll make it work but um it is a pretty big burden to ask there's no getting around it but I just wanted to highlight that and also it kind of for me brings up things about we talk about the makeup of the board and how we want to have a diverse board and um uh things like this can make it hard for

10:04 people to want to serve on these boards because not everybody can just take off nine days in a month. >> That observation. Anybody else on correspondence? Okay. Now, we're moving on to public input. All right. Welcome to the public input session for this meeting. E Web is a public non-for-profit organization whose charter is to deliver drinking water and electricity to our community. Although this forum is not used for an open back and forth dialogue, commissioners and staff value hearing diverse perspectives and receiving community input. Speakers are asked to keep their testimony relevant to e webb business and request

10:51 that everyone share their comments in a productive and respectful manner. Should speakers or audience member become disruptive, they may be muted and or removed from the meeting. At this time, we have two callers and three people in person. When your name is called, you will have up to three minutes to provide your comments. The public's input session is now open. Okay, so Lucenne was on the call-in list. She has not called in. If she calls in before the end of public comment, we'll be happy to listen to her. First up is Delicam.

11:39 I don't know if I got that right, but you can hit your unmute. >> Can you all hear me? Okay, on that side. >> Yes, we are. Go ahead. You'll have three minutes. Thank you. Evening. My name is Declan Zupo. I'm an e- web customer renting in W 3. Uh this evening, I'm hoping to address the board regarding the general manager selection process in the recent greenhouse gas inventory included in the board's packet for this evening. I've grown up in a climate that I see rapidly changing and increasingly affecting my life and that of my community. Two years ago, my friends and I were displaced from our home following the unprecedented ice storm which swept the Wamut Valley. Before that, in 2020, the opposite element forced my brother and I from our rental in Eugene due to

12:25 improper ventilation. I'm hopeful, however, in knowing that this public publicly owned utility has taken stringent actions to address the climate crisis, including SB15, to address and recognize um this crisis, but more must be done. In accordance with Fossil Free Eugene's recommendation, I would like to advocate for the board to consider the following in selecting a candidate for the general manager position. a strong background in sustainability and climate action, experience with and or recognition of public utilities importance as one of our keystone public institutions, and experience and comfort working with a wide spectrum of community stakeholders and commitment to justice informed public processes. With respect to the 2024 emissions audit I mentioned earlier, um I think it's incredible to see that our 2030 goal of 50% reduction in operations related

13:10 emissions has been reached. Uh despite this, more steps must be taken to meet EWB's netneutral goals. Some recommendations being establishing a time of replacement electrification requirement for your light fleet and e webbown owned buildings, setting clear goals for all primary directives under SD15, including 100% building electrification by 2045 for the customer decarbonization directive, and incorporating rate reductions and other affordability measures into climate planning. I appreciate your time uh and giving me the platform to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Jim New followed by Eric. That is verify. Eric,

14:01 >> commissioners, thank you. My name is Jim New. I live in Ward 7. Um, speaking I'm speaking on behalf of 350 Eugene policy team. In the upcoming weeks, you will have the opportunity to hire a general manager who can set a direction for e-web to provide more distributed distributed locally sourced energy and support cutting edge electrification with renewable generation. This is an opportunity to hire a climate justice advocate to run an influential, well-funded public utility that can partner with the city of Eugene to promote electrification and weatherization upgrades. Over the last 10 years, the city has failed to meet the goals of the climate recovery ordinance. City operations have reduced in-house greenhouse gas emissions by only 24% and communitywide greenhouse

14:46 gas emissions by only 11% in order to get to 50% reduction based on 2010 emissions by 2030. Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have been negligent in building energy infrastructure for many years that we are now in a period of scarcity. A gap of nine gigawatts will be experienced by 2030 between what is needed and what is generated. An average amount consumed by the state of Oregon in a year. We need a general manager that has experience with locally sourced renewable energy with battery storage energy systems in establishing micro grids and virtual power plants. Solar is now 66% cheaper than a decade ago. And last year the world installed 553 gawatts of solar power which could

15:34 power 100 million homes. One out of five new cars sold now is electric opposed to one in 110 years ago. The Oregon legislature just passed legislation that removes hurdles to creating micro grids. Renewable sourcing is not going to be one technology saving the world, but is part of a smart integration with a technology-based grid that will be a solution component. On the power side, e webb needs a general manager who has experience at a public power utility with implementation abilities for affordable rate designs and appliance incentives who can set a compelling strategic sustainable vision for the e-web customer community. Thank you. >> Thank you, Eric D. Sorry.

16:33 Good evening, commissioners and uh general manager and e webb staff. Good to be with you. My name is Eric Jura. Um I'm an e webb customer and I live in ward 6. Uh two or three quick items. Just some comments. First of all, I wanted to extend my thanks to Commissioner Brown. This uh for something that happened a few couple of months ago, but I didn't have a chance to to be here in person until this evening. uh he arranged for me to to uh get a a tour of the Sierra Pacific cogen plant and I very much appreciate it. I had learned a tremendous amount about it about how it works. Very impressive operation. Um the staff that that provided the tour were extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of of of the the plant itself and also um the various potential effects on the ecology and climate change and all those sorts of things. They knew everything about

17:20 it, all the rules, everything they had to follow. and it's an immensely complex undertaking to comply with all the layers of rules and so forth and and it seems that as though they're they're they're able to do that. So I was very impressed. Second thing is is um uh had a chance to watch the video of your work session about the WAMIT treatment plant. Uh, one thing I would say about it is is given how long it's taken uh to reach this point and you're uh making I think you're making great progress at this point. Uh, it it sort of um it resonates with me that there's an awful lot of uncertainty and and u uh risk in this project. There's just a lot of steps that have to be followed. There's a lot of uh a lot of regulatory layers. Uh

18:06 there are a lot of engineering challenges especially with in dealing with earthquakes and those sorts of things. Uh and I just hope that uh you'll that the staff will will keep that in mind. I'm sure they will but it's a particular interest of mine uh that that happens. This is is going to be um um an an interesting project to try and for so um I very much appreciated the discussion. Uh it was very very informative. I really very much appreciated the questions uh from uh from the board. Um it's been my experience uh in watching the board and what it does that that everyone does their homework and pays very close attention and asks good questions and and is always the case. I learned a lot and I really appreciate that. Um so uh

18:52 uh and and then also the last thing is was the the discussion at the end where where someone someone finally asked the Tim question which is good and I think that's that should be an important part of your all all of your discussion. So um so thanks for the for the good work on that and I look forward to seeing um what the design looks like and how how all of that works out in the coming years. So thank you very much. Next up is Lindy Kelly and James or Jones. [clears throat] >> Sorry. Good evening, commissioners, general manager. My name is Linda Kelly and I live in Ward One. Uh, thank you

19:37 for the opportunity to give testimony. The choice of a new general manager is an important task in normal times. However, in these challenging times, it is crucial that the new manager have certain strengths to meet this moment. A recent OPB article that [clears throat] Jim referred to um outlined the need for substantial new electrical capacity in Oregon in the next few years. E Web as the largest consumerowned utility is in the position to be a leader and an example of what is possible as we transition to 100% clean electricity for both transportation and home use eventually. A new general manager must be forwardinking and knowledgeable about

20:23 emerging technologies. The passage of HB 33336, the grid enhancement technologies [clears throat] will play an important part in adding capacity to existing lines, avoiding long wait times, and significantly bringing down the cost. Oregon is a prime location for geothermal energy. The project at Newbury Crater is showing the [clears throat] viability of providing energy for large load increases like data centers in particular with safe on-site base load electricity taking the load off of the statewide grid. The transition is beginning to roll out. Northwest [clears throat] Natural has joined a consortium of gas providers who are looking at network geothermal

21:10 um as a transition for their future business models. These are examples of the importance of a new general manager who is forwardinking, informed, and is willing to advocate on electrical capacity statewide as well as staying a breast of emerging opportunities to increase reliable clean energy locally. Thank you for your opportunity to testify. >> Thank you, Ken Jones. >> Good evening, commissioners and general manager. Uh my name is Ken Jones and I'm

21:56 in Ward One. Uh many have said things I agree with already tonight uh about the selection of a new general manager. I'm extremely concerned about Eugene falling failing its climate goals. Uh so much more renewable energy to supplement the hydro power for any increasing needs for energy is important to me. It should be to the general manager as well. So, how do you find a candidate who is truly focused on that? There is a good study from May 2023 done by Brattle called real reliability, the value of virtual power that each candidate could be asked about. If they have seriously

22:42 looked at where the benefits are are in going with solar and wind, they should be familiar with it. It shows how a distri distribution grid focus can save a lot of money through v virtual power plants set up in micro grids with storage. But I want to mention a common argument used against residential solar by utilities which is the cost shift one that implies without evidence that those without rooftop solar are subsidizing those who have paid for putting solar on their roof. I would hope you would hire a general manager who understands the whole picture of benefits that distribution grid cited residential solar provides including economic growth, job creation,

23:29 public health, energy security, resilience in climate chaos generated outages when paired with micro grids and storage. Reduction of need for more energy during peak need times. lower energy costs for everyone. There are other cost shifts that are often not talked about in the cost shift argument, but there's city that are built into the system. City users paying extra costs for rural energy, customers with overhead lines subsidizing those with underground lines, etc. The hope is the new general manager understands the traditional cost shift argument used against rooftop solar of investorowned utilities is bunk. The

24:15 distribution grid gives us flexibility and cost savings. Thank you. >> Thank you. That was our last scheduled speaker. We will open it up to commissioners for comments. So good. >> I appreciate the outpouring of support for looking for a sustainability candidate um to replace Frank. >> I know it's going to be hard to place Frank, but I appreciate the interest from the community in this daunting process as Mindy pointed out earlier. So, thanks for your attention, >> Mindy. Um, I too appreciate people coming and letting us know what they want to see in the next general manager. I think that

25:01 um, a commitment to sustainability is um, consistent with what we as a board um, have decided and um, I think that sometime and pretty soon we'll know who our candidate pool is. So, I'm really excited to see who we get. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I wanted to say thank you to those who came out and uh shared their thoughts on the general manager um at our last meeting talking about scheduling. This was a huge concern of mine and I know that we are on a tight uh schedule. So, um uh a lot of public input has been um expedited is the the word I'll use. So, um I appreciate hearing about

25:47 sustainability and those are my focuses as well. So, thank you so much for for coming out. Um, and Eric, always great to hear from you and you are just very deeply knowledgeable. So, thank you for for always coming forward and doing your homework as well. So, thank you. >> I'd like to echo the comments of the other commissioners and also like to you commented about the city not meeting their goals. Um, I understand that. But also, if somehow you can turn around and look at our agenda item 15 tonight, look at the background and look where we are. And uh I'm very proud of where we are on on meeting our greenhouse gas goals and and our projections and you know we're 93% renewable. We've already met our operational goals. So we're doing great and I I think and we're on the right trajectory and uh and continue to go that way and I I don't see any reason

26:33 why this board would adopt anything or hire anybody that wouldn't continue to to pursue those goals. All right, with that I will clo close the public comment section and we will move on to item number five which is approval of consent calendar A. >> Move to adopt consent calendar A. >> Okay, moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Unanimous. Number six is approval of consent calendar B. Move to adopt consent calendar B. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor say I.

27:18 >> I. >> I. Unanimous. Okay. Next up is City of Eugene liaison update. Who wants to start this? Go ahead, Mindy. Um, so we met with the city of Eugene and um, we talked a lot about the fire hydrants and what we're going to do about that and I know that um, that is something that Frank had said that staff is talking about and we'll get updates on that as there's progress made. Um, we also talked about the second source and just inform them about what our process is and um maybe what some hurdles are and

28:05 uh how they can support us if those hurdles remain and I don't remember what I think that was the main gist of what our conversation was. >> Right. Frank, did do you have things that you >> um Sure. Additionally, so um yes, fire hydrants. Yes. Second source. Some of that was um advocacy, understand the importance of the relationship between the two cities and the importance of looking at um water in particular from a resiliency standpoint, not based on the boundaries of a city, but recognizing that when you get into situations like that design is intended for that there is a uh a mutual

28:54 benefit um to those who could be served by that. And I think that was an important piece of it. Uh we did talk about some of the uh regional challenges. Um Mr. New just mentioned uh some of those relative to the forecasts across the region versus the rate of production um in your traditional um um type of generation. Um it does bring up the importance of of dealing with this at a distribution and community level and I think that um the executive team and management team is having a number of discussions as to what that looks like um and the importance of that. It also presents opportunities for us to and this is actually something that came

29:39 up after the fact in talking with staff and um leaning into the fact that there are certain uh tax exemptions potentially available to people in the community for certain things and yet there's very little if any efficiency requirements that come along with those tax exemptions and we think that may be an opportunity to have some negotiations with the city around that. So, um, a little bit more detail that would have to come before we would present that to the city. And if the city is listening in, this is not what we talked about. So, they they'd be surprised by this. I don't want to, uh, head them off before we even get started. Um, but there are some opportunities there. So, um, we talked about energy, we talked about water, we talked about potential opportunities, um, that that can come from that.

30:25 >> Yeah. And and lastly, what I would say is that um the working relationship is I think at a at a very high level between staff and between both staffs and I think that corresponds to the policy level as well. I think when we sat in there, the the leadership from the city of Eugene was very receptive to hearing from us. they it was it was I don't want to say it wasn't 50/50, but it was much more of us educating them on a lot of the things that we're doing uh that that impact them and they were very uh receptive to hearing about that and and asked a lot of questions on those. So, yeah. Yeah. We also um talked about the

31:12 importance of the fact that the utility bill is not just used to collect utility charges that the the city fees do have an impact on affordability. And we also uh talked a little bit about the expense that we go through to do that and and and therefore a recent change in how much we're going to be charging the city for that for that billing. Um which is um still efficient compared to their other options. Um and that'll be implemented in July, correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah, in July. So, um we talked about the importance of the utility bill u from that perspective as well. Okay. Any other qu any questions or comments on that?

31:57 Um, the last thing that I would say is if you over the next few months, if you think of something um that you would like to have us discuss during those meetings, jot them down and get them to us before we go in because we kind of go in there with certain ideas that that have brought been brought to us by staff. But if there's things that you want us to ask, please let us know. Yes, John. Yeah, I'm just thinking about we've had a discussion about when we do second source and things such as that nicucker bridge having to come down or be rebuilt because it's not it's our it's our bridge and whether or not you know how long that's going to be out and and whether there's any cost sharing opportunity or anything such as that. Just I I would wonder if we want to give them a heads up that that's on the on

32:43 the horizon would be a good idea. Thank you. Okay, moving right along. Deborah upcoming years 2026 proposed budget and prices. Just a just a heads up here. I was noticing or I wasn't noticing, Sonia noticed that we're quite a quite a bit

33:29 ahead on on our presentation uh for the public hearing which is supposed to be at 710. If we're still this far ahead, I might slide Jason in for the legislative update before the public hearing just so Jason be ready. you may be called on beforehand. >> Good evening, commissioners. Uh Deborah Hart, HM and CFO for the record. I'm here to uh answer questions, but my team has pulled together the presentation and so I'm going to hand it off. >> Good evening, commissioners. Um, for the record, Tiam Marie Harwood, financial services manager, and with me this evening are Adam Rue, a rates manager, and Alicia Borhees, financial planning

34:15 and analysis supervisor. We were here before you last month to discuss the updates made to the long-term financial plans and also brought forth the 2026 draft budgets that staff prepared. This evening, we are here to review the 2026 proposed budgets and prices, which will be followed by the first of two public hearings on proposed prices. After the public hearing, we'll be seeking board direction, thereby allowing staff to prepare the final 2026 budgets and price proposals for the December 2nd board meeting. The proposed 2026 budgets were developed in alignment with EWB strategic priorities and total 492.3 million for the electric and water utilities

35:01 combined. The cost of delivering essential water and electric services continues to rise due to inflation, new regulatory requirements, and the need to replace or modernize aging infrastructure. The coming year will bring continued investments in critical capital projects and financial planning helps us to make these investments in a measured responsible way balancing near-term affordability with long-term sustainability. And Alicia will share more about each utility's priorities heading into 2026. Uh starting with the water utility, the water utility operations and maintenance budget totals approximately 32 million. This figure is approximately 4 million

35:47 uh lower as compared to the 2025 budget as a result of winding down watershed recovery and restor restoration work as well as refining shared service uh budget allocations. This budget supports initiatives in source protection, ongoing services to provide clean, healthy water through operations at Hayden Bridge, and service reliability through regular maintenance of the distribution system. It supports e webb's commitment to affordability through bill assistance programs such as customer care. The water utility capital budget totals approximately 60 million and is approximately 12 million higher as compared to the 2025 budget. due to tank and pipeline construction on the College

36:33 Hill reservoir as well as the riverfront and east 23rd transmission mains replacement and improvement. This budget supports design for a second water drinking source, investments for storage and transmission mains and completion of advanced meter infrastructure for the water system. The budget also supports shared services updates to uh shared service efforts to upgrade legacy IT systems as part of the e webb enterprise solutions program. The electric utility operations and maintenance budget totals 292 million. This figure is approximately $16 million lower as compared to the 2025 budget with lower wholesale purchase power from

37:18 lower market prices as the driver. I'd like to note that along with a reduction in market purchases, there's an offsetting reduction in wholesale sales revenue. This budget supports continued progress towards decommissioning Leeberg as well as dam safety work on EW's Mackenzie River hydroelectric assets. It furthers system maintenance, protection, and vegetation management work. And it supports customer and bill assistance programs. The electric utility capital budget totals approximately 109 million and is 11 million higher as compared to the 2025 budget. Capital investments in substation and transmission system improvements contributed to this increase. This budget supports investments for

38:04 eweb owned hydroelectric projects to include Carmen Smith license implementation, Lee Canal near-term risk reduction and repairing the Walterville for bay. The budget also supports transmission and distribution infrastructure investments to include substation improvements, compliance driven replacements, and telecom equipment replacements. It supports shared service efforts to upgrade legacy IT systems as well as part of the e webb enterprise solutions program. And with that, I'll turn it over to Adam to discuss proposed prices. >> Thanks, Alicia. Out of the 2026 proposals include a 6% increase for water and 3.9% for electric increases in

38:50 the overall revenue requirement for the respective utilities. The water utility increases higher for the elevation charges. The two largest customer service classes of residential and general service are both um consistent with the overall increase. They vary a bit which is typical for cost of service results. um for the electric utility. The Bonavville power cost adjustment that was provided to the board as correspondence in September is incor is um went into effect in November 1st um just a couple days ago for the customer service policy. This is a temporary adjustment um for up to one year. The rate action would incorporate that into the base rates as proposed. Um in

39:36 addition the um new rate classes for the Mackenzie Valley Service Territory are were developed and are being proposed here. Um those increases are higher than the overall average. As discussed in September, we reviewed the fixed and variable costs uh specifically for the residential electric utility. So those proposals are presented in future slides. Presented here is the water utilities adjustments by customer class. As mentioned earlier, the residential and general service are both within 100 or 1% of the overall increase. The elevation charge is the highest increase. Uh one contract customer

40:21 showed a decrease. So we are proposing to hold that at zero to employ graduates to avoid future rate shock for the um general service. Oh sorry I was looking at the wrong um the uh 90% of the residential customers are in this less than one inch meter size. The majority of the customers the background showed the other meter sizes the overall increase was 5.1% but since it impacted the fixed versus the variable charge differently the range um for these usage levels was 3.6 to 5.4%.

41:07 um within the average of 5.1% the rate structure was left consistent with the fixed monthly charge and the tiered increasing block rates for the quantity usage. Um for general service customer classes uh 90 over 95% of the customers are in this uh less than one inch one inch or two inch meters. the background also show the three to 10 inch meter size impacts. Um the increases impacted the larger meter sizes to a larger extent um due to capacity investments um specifically um as the the average customer class usage or the

41:53 average usage for this class is 50 kg per month. Moving to the electric utility, this shows this slide shows the class basis increases to support the 2026 budget. The overall impact is 3.9% but the impacts vary by class. These increases are addition to the November increase of 3.4% um that impacted residential customers by 2.7%. So it's a little lower impact for residential for the BPA power cost. This slide um shows the impact for the McKenzie Valley service territory. So

42:38 absent a service territory transfer, these are the proposed impacts to or the proposed rates that will go into effect on uh June 1st. Um because the Mackenzie Valley Service Territory realignment is currently under considerate consideration between EW Webb and Lane Electric, we're not proposing to implement until after the date that that's expected to go through. if it doesn't go through things as presented at least. Um so the based on um some feedback in the September rate design discussion um we added some impact of qualitative factors that was in the background or and then here presented some qual quantitative impacts. Each of these rows represents

43:24 10% of our customer bills. So the 0 to 250 um line item represents 10% of the bills in each of those uh represents roughly 10% of our customer bills. So this is the impact by those different percentile levels. Um this reflects the um increase in the fixed monthly charge from $30 to 38.50 to res to reflect the cost of service results. This slide shows one of the commercial or general service um customer classes. The small general service has the majority of the customers roughly 8,600 customers are in this um this group. The

44:09 average usage for this class is 1,700 kilwatt hours. Um this shows the bill impacts um for five kilowatt demand um 20 and 30 kilowatts of demand with different kilowatt hour use levels. So this represents a lot of small commercial businesses and variety of different majority of our customers that are commercial customers. Um so the top graph shows the e webb electric rates. Um the increase for the bonavville power cost adjustments included in the current rates. The effect of this rate adjustment at this

44:55 usage level would be three roughly $3 um per month. The bonavville power cost adjustment was $6 per month at this usage level. Um the chart on the right shows the impact of the water cost of service analysis and increase at $2 per month. US position remains relatively low among the comparators even with the significant uh investments and economic drivers. The combined impact of both of these adjustments is $5 at these usage levels in addition to the $6 roughly $6 a month increase with the electric utility for long pass. With that, I think we're turning to

45:41 public hearing with directors. >> Okay, I will open it up for questions or comments. Done. >> Help me understand. We have one private water company and that's Wamut and we're overcharging them by 6% because they're the only ones that not in the bump and this is I think the second year in a row that we've done that to them and I'm just wondering why um why just that one and it's a private company. >> Yeah, the the biggest impact for their um their adjustment is based on their usage pattern. So they had significant leak in their historic data that's used to inform the cost of service analysis. We know that that was driving some anomalous factors in the cost of service

46:26 adjust analysis. And so we wanted to hold them flat until we have more consistent data that's kind of post the impact of the >> and it also shows they only have seven customers. Um but they use three million gallons. >> I'm sorry. What was that? I'm I'm just looking at, you know, on page 12 that it just says that their customer counts are seven for a water company and I'm just wondering if I mean versus 47,000 for EB. I'm just wondering how that could be um sorry I didn't catch this earlier. I just wonder >> Oh, sure. That those are the um they're served under larger meters that are then they're taking and serving their customers similar to the water districts. >> So like they have large like for mobile

47:12 home parks. I know it's all at Goen and part of Creswell and all that area on I5. So there's a lot more than seven customers. They're just Are they reselling it? >> So we're providing them through the seven meters and then >> they resell. >> They're reselling >> and we're not we're not raising their rates. >> I'm sorry. >> We're not raising their rates, but we're raising everybody. >> We're raising to or no, we're not raising the rates to land water. >> Okay. And just a comment, historically on the electric chart where we are on the affordability, you know, the only ones we're below are the two IUs, Sacramento and Blley Lane. Um, and you you look at that and we used to be

47:57 way over there to the left and now we're creeping way up to the right and uh back when we we adopted the policy that we're not going to let rates go past inflation. And uh I know that that's we're doing everything we can, but I I think for me um I'm going to push in the future to keep rates as low as we can because they're getting out of hand again in my opinion. Thank you, >> Tim. >> I think there was a commissioner before me just to get around it. >> Okay. Sorry. Just want to confirm. Um I do have a few questions. Um a few slides back um you highlight under electric small general service medium general service large. Can you describe the difference

48:42 between those three of general service what what constitutes a small medium or large? >> Oh it's based on their kilowatt of demand. So we there if their measured demand goes be above a certain threshold three months in a 12-month period then they would that would set their level. So if you're third for the difference between small and medium is 30 kilowatts. If you're at 35 kilowatts for three months out of a 12 months period, then you would move to medium. Otherwise, if you're under that, then you're small. So it's based on consumption or peak demand. >> Thank you. And you uh when we were talking about water, you verbally talked about the majority of customers fall under a certain amount of um gallons per. Can you can you repeat that? >> Sure. It's the meter size serving the

49:27 customers. So for water customers their um capacity or demand related service is based on the meter size uh delivering water to the customer. So we um price that demand based on the meter size. If you're a less than one inch meter, you pay a less monthly charge than if you're a 200 meter. theory being that if you if we've installed infrastructure to serve you at the 2 inch meter size, there's a lot of assets kind of being on that are being set aside to serve that capacity. >> I I heard a percent and I think it was somewhere in the 90% of the majority of customers fall under a certain metering size or metering uh >> how many gallons they're using. So can

50:12 you what what was that number? So sorry one inch. >> Yeah. So that was for the residential customers. The majority of them are under one inch. So there could be a handful of customers that are um larger if they have a lot of um outdoor irrigation. Great. Okay. And then on the slides for the um electric residential bill impacts, I think on your end it's page 22. Um is it possible to go to that? It's the >> Oh, sorry. I think one more. Oh, to the right. There we go. Um I there this is I'm not

50:58 understanding this and I'm hoping you can explain this to me. This feels backwards of the usage range at 0 to 250 has the largest difference of proposed prices than the uh customers who are on the percentile of usage range of 1801 and over. Can you explain why that that is why the customers who are at the lowest lowest usage range? So I'm thinking like single folks in one home or folks who are working really hard to keep their energy bills lower. Um why that they're being charged the highest amount of difference versus the consumers who are using the most. >> Sure. Um so the proposed recommend or the the recommendation is aligned with

51:44 our cost of service analysis. It's not really making assessment on like attributes about those people specifically their anything about their demographic information. It's just purely looking at like the cost of serving those customers. We look at the customer specific infrastructure or costs related to like billing and services and we look at all of those costs that are on a customer specific basis. We would um we're aligning those costs with the rates which is um impacting the fixed monthly charge to a greater extent than the volutric charge. Conversely, the Bonavville power adjustment was 100% in that volumetric rate. So this chart would have been flipped if we just looked at the same bill impact for the Bonavville pass

52:30 through. So kind of the combined effect of both of those. This is showing the fixed cost increase that we're implementing for the budget rates and the Bonavville passenger was all the volumetric rates. So the combined of those kind of mirrors each other. That makes sense. couple of questions. So, the um upriver sale, if we if we did go through and sell that um there the way that it's budgeted currently, is it essentially revenue neutral if it if it went through? So, we don't get any of the benefits of it because it's separated out with this um proposed uh separate

53:17 rate. >> Yeah. So for the the proposal is for these to go into effect like post the timing of the transfer. So we're um we would be adjusting their rates on February 1st similar to everyone else because like the new class doesn't isn't proposed to go into effect for until fe uh June 1st. So the February 1 increase would go into effect with them. So it affects every customer is going to have to rate adjustment in February 1. So that the impact of the incremental revenue isn't something that we would see unless the transfer doesn't go through and then propose the adjustment fee to first. >> Okay. >> So if it doesn't happen then then the proposal is we implement these if it does happen then this doesn't matter.

54:04 >> Correct. >> Okay. But if if this doesn't matter I mean we've been subsidizing we've never had this separate rate. We've talked about it for a number of years. We put it on hold after the upper river fire in consideration of the situation that happened there. Um do are the other rates would they be positively impacted if it's sold or because of this it it's neutral? >> So there would be no rate change for our other customers in June. Some of these costs will uh will go away with the immediately upon transfer. We would see lower fuel costs. um a little bit of staffing, tree trimming, and then over time uh we expect to see a long-term

54:50 value through risk reduction, better concentration on our urban areas. I don't know if Frank wants to add to that. >> I I would just be more specific. You're not going to see a tick up or a tick down within the the Eugene community whether this happens or not. Okay, that's >> um and then um the secondary source rate impact is not built into this and I'm curious as to why and when do we determine that or not? >> I I'll jump in again. Uh thanks, Commissioner. The what this does include is the design and the continuation of any uh land use or permitting uh

55:36 requirements that we have. Um we have scheduled um between April and May a whole series uh of discussions with the with the board. It's probably a regular session and I believe it's also a um a work session to talk about whether we push forward on the second source uh which includes a number of things. Uh the rate impacts specifically we'll have a lot better feel for the exact costs as well as economic um improvement opportunities. Um and then the discussion around um not just the raw costs but who pays and how. So some rate design um discussions including SDC's um and so um if it's um impacting or preserving capacity it might be treated

56:21 differently um than um than just base volume. So those discussions plan for April or May. >> Okay. So essentially we we do have some portion of it baked in so that we can get to that next decision point. It's not nothing is it? That's okay. Correct. That's great. >> And then uh I noticed in the documents although we haven't covered it too much here that there is a proposed $9 fixed rate increase on the base rate. I'd like to talk a little bit about that and what what the I mean I think I know the general cause is always the fixed cost but that's a pretty giant increase. And so I'm just what is what is the driver on that particular one? Um because that's a that's that hits people even if they're trying to conserve.

57:07 >> Sure. And that that's not necessarily driven by an incremental change from 2026 relative to 2025. I think it's a been a legacy u cost that we've included as volutric costs instead of in the fixed charge. So we've over time over the last um at least 10 to 15 years been incrementally increasing the fixed charge to avoid the that cost shift and to kind of position ourselves for those future rate design discussions. Um, so this isn't necessarily an incremental change. The costs that comprise the fixed charge for the electric utility at least. We have those customer specific costs like billing, customer service that are kind of put in the fixed monthly charge as well as a portion of our distribution

57:53 system. So cost related to like maintaining overhead lines and distribution assets, a portion of those get allocated on a customer basis. So we kind of cover some in infrastructure costs. Um and so that's been the way that our cost of service modeling's been done. It's just we haven't fully recovered those in our fixed monthly bill over time. So this proposal is a step up to kind of fully align those instead of incrementally like how we've been moving over the last few years. >> I mean how much have we increased it over the last few years like each year? because this is this is like a >> I think the last one was $5 >> increased from 25 to 30 if I remember correctly. >> Frank, you want to respond? >> Yeah, certainly. So, there's there's a

58:39 number of of reasons. If if you do look at the chart I believe um Commissioner Morris was talking about, you will recognize that that volume still your bill is still based on on volume. The the reason the difference is that for a number of years we have not fully recovered the fixed cost. Uh the fixed cost the very first electron is the most expensive to deliver for for a number of reasons. Um, also in the long term, we're trying to get better alignment between cost and price. Uh, so that we can offer incentives that align with electrification, energy efficiency, peak mitigation, a lot of the things that we would actually experience on the volumetric side. We want to be able to reward for that. Um, it is also

59:25 important to note that that volume in those different buckets does not equate to income. There are just as many high users low income as are low users low income. In fact, the lowest bracket that below 250 are likely people who spend part of the year not here. And so there's a number of things that the data points to that don't correlate. Um but the reason is and we're kind of there each utility is a bit different. We're somewhere in the middle on the fixed charge. Uh Lane Electric for example is I believe $39 or $40. Blley's in the $60 range. Um just different utilities have different approaches to that and we feel in the long term it's better to align cost and price including the fixed

1:00:10 component and the variable component. So we're we're catching up if you want to classify it that way >> Andy. >> So if we were to true up that fixed cost now, so we're we have a $9 increase. If we were to true it up now, what would that number be? >> So, this is the the proposal is to do that now to adjust it for our fixed customer specific costs. We had that discussion in the in last September where we talked about putting um some additional delivery charges in the fixed monthly charge. So, it isn't going that far. It's just going for the customer specific costs. And then I know you've shown us the projections for the future

1:00:55 years, but so if we kind of true up that fixed cost now, then next year we don't have as big we don't have a jump like that. Correct. >> That would be correct. >> Okay. >> And in the past we've just done it more incrementally, >> a few dollars at a time. So this really trs us up. Um, Commissioner, I would I would also add that future increases will be based on the costs that drive those increases. There there could be um costs that we're incurring that are u more capacity related. Some of those start to get into um what's your demand charge. For example, on the commercial side, it's more of a volutric component. We call it

1:01:41 delivery. on the on the residential side. It depends on in the future years what is actually driving the investments. So it's it's not a guarantee that it could be slightly one way or the other. That's something that we continue to have to look at as far as what are those investments um uh realizing for us and and um again kind of who pays for what kind of investments that we're making whether that's a fixed charge or a volutric charge and even there argue about internally. I'm looking at Adam because we've we've all had some arguments as to what's a fixed component and what's a variable component. Um, and so this is kind of where we think is a good point to land. Although I I could

1:02:26 argue that the fixed component could be even higher, but we I think we're we're pretty happy with with what we've included at this point. >> Thanks. >> Um, and just to follow up on the question that Sonia asked, so if we did the Mackenzie Valley Territory transfer, is that neutral to our budget? If we if we get rid of them as as customers, what what is the impact to our budget? >> So for 2026, there is no impact to the budget. There will be some costs that are that are in this cost of service uh allocated to the McKenzie Valley that will be reabsorbed. We will um uh be doing some catchup work and evaluating

1:03:14 what that change really means to our territory. There also will be costs that will fall off immediately. Yes, you're getting ahead of us on the agenda item here, but um I I would I would just say when we're really kind of diving into the details of a potential McKenzie realignment, um over the long term, we think it offers a lot of value both in avoided cost, risk mitigation. There's a number of things. In the near term, there's going to be a few things that that probably apply apply a little pricing pressure and other things that probably uh apply some pricing relief. Um those to to Deborah's point in the near term are are pro probably kind of a wash and we're going to have to take a look when we when we go forward as to um

1:04:02 um those, you know, we want more benefit. We we want fair benefit. I'm I'm not going to call it if you say rate neutral to an accountant has a different term than when we say really long-term value which we think is fair uh a balance of the price we're getting the services we're providing that they're going to pay for ongoing uh versus some of the um things associated with power supply and other stuff. So um probably nothing in the near term that shows up on a bill that says here's a Mackenzie Valley component. Um but we're going to have to manage that. We're going to have to manage it actively. >> Thank you. Two more questions. I'll be quick. Um on the chart that shows what our electric rates are compared to other

1:04:47 utilities. Um I know we've also talked about that other utilities are going to be raising their rates as well and this does not reflect that. Right. These are just these are current now and we are going to be going up average $3 a month e-w but we don't know what the other utilities are going to correct. >> That is correct. >> Except Frank maybe has some intelligence here. >> I'm sorry. So, um, in discussions with other general managers, many of those I'm going to say, um, at least half of the ones I talked to are are a greater increase than than we are. Ours within the Bonavville Balancing Authority area, it's probably fairly typical. um some of the others. It's it's it's almost like

1:05:33 the more resources you have outside of of Bonavville, at least in the public power sector, the more you're you're seeing pricing pressures. Um that's why you see even the IUS seeing, you know, 30 35% increases. um some of the other utilities that have a more diverse portfolio are seeing slightly different pressures, but it's it's probably within consumerowned utility pretty um pretty similar. I think something that might be helpful is like six months from now or something, it could be part of correspondence or something. But if you were to update us on this instead of having to wait the whole next year, it would I just think that could be interesting >> in the July materials. >> Yep. Great. Perfect.

1:06:19 >> And then one last thing is that um for the water side, this um budget includes the watershed recovery fee which is $5 a month. Is that correct? >> Three. $3 a month. And that is expiring at the end of 2020. No, >> mid year. >> May year. Okay. Great. That's all. Thank you. >> I tried to add add components here. So um given that we have discussions I believe it's teed up for March um might be April because we shifted it I can't remember if we shifted in month because we wanted to incorporate the the uh penta plume update. Um that's going to

1:07:04 be an opportunity for the board to discuss um if in the long term um you want to look at additional source protection into a budget even though the the uh source recovery has fulfilled its its mission. Uh some of that will come into play if if the WAMIT plant goes ahead. There's obviously investments we would want to make in the WAMIT system and so kind of that spring timing for the source protection having a decision on whether um um something continues in in lie of that fee. Um but that does come off in in July of 26. >> So if we extended that then that would

1:07:49 be a further increase from July on. >> Yeah. I and I'll just give you management's perspective is is because that fee was created for a certain period of time for a certain purpose that purpose has been fulfilled. We we see that suns setting if the board wants to um create either an alternative um within our budget or a separate um type of mechanism that would be for the board's discussion. But but we actually believe that that has fulfilled its purpose. it's met the resolution and the resolution expires in July. So, we're we're seeing that discontinue as a specific fee. The board in the meantime can have discussions around if if there's um some alternative um approach

1:08:36 to it that you'd like to take. >> Okay. I'll start with my easy question first. Um on the the PERS increase, uh we saw it go from 25 to 27.7. Do you have another have you gotten any indications from the PERS board what more we're going to be coming up from from because we went from 21% and 24 to 25 and 25 and now we're at 20 almost 28. any indication from the B PERS board what their trajectory is? >> We'll have a new evaluation coming out

1:09:21 next year and that'll give us an idea. We do forecast increases. I don't have those numbers right in front of me, but we do plan for regular increases >> and they're capped at like 6%, right? They can increase that. >> No. Oh, >> there are some there are some collar and double collar rules, but we are not limited to a 6% increase. >> Okay, now I'll get into the other one. So, of the 7.4% increase that we've had with the two different rates, is the in is the increase to basic charge in that 7.4% or is the increase on the basic charge on top of that? >> That's included. >> That's included. Okay. I'm gonna I'm going to talk about it.

1:10:08 You know, Tim brought it up initially. Um, and Frank made some points that it's not necessarily regressive, but it is regressive, especially on small smaller account holders. Um, and by by putting this adopting this budget with that $8.50 50 cent increase in the residential and and the increases in the other service categories. We're making a policy dis decision to make uh our rates regressive. That's what we're doing if we adopt this program. Now, it's a little bit late in the game for us to be changing that, but I think that that is a policy discussion that is worth worthy of having. Would we

1:10:54 rather see some of that shift more to volutric and what are the the costs and the benefits of doing that? Um, you know, you say it may impact what we want to do in the future, but as somebody who sees this as a small account holder, I've got a a warehouse where I I rent a thing and my basic charge is $60 and my usage is $6. Um, and so, um, I see it as being a regressive part of our rate structure. Now, I'm not, again, the reason that it jumps up to me is because of the increase that we have here, but I do see this as a policy that

1:11:41 staff is putting forward that I would like to have a discussion at it at some point. >> Yeah, President Barski. Um I think the polity policy decision and the policy direction uh that we got probably about a year ago was not about the regressiveness of it. It was about the alignment with cost. Cost in its very nature with utilities does have a a regressive element to it because of the fixed um amount of cost that we're incurring. And the board's direction was to at first align with cost and then develop incentives that promote efficiency um and electrification and some of these these other um I'll say demand side

1:12:27 programs that would have value of which the value could then be returned to both the recipient and the community. And so um the policy decision um as well as the principles around sufficiency stability the more you put into the volutric charge the more variable your revenue becomes uh and dependent on weather for example so there are implications but um I think management has taken the board's direction previously and said that alignment with cost is initial steps followed by developing incentives to uh promote good consumer behavior that has benefit for them and for all. >> Okay. And and and thank you for that. And I guess I guess then the the uh the

1:13:15 takeaway that I get from this is when we talk about that in the in the grand concept, this is what it comes down to. You know, when we talked about it a year ago in September and we said, "Yeah, yeah, I think that the cost should be should be put in there." This is what it means. It means an $8.50 person increase. And so I it's just uh it opened my eyes. >> Yeah. One one distinction as well because I I certainly agree with with you um your observations. I think uh Commissioner Morris has the same observations. Um the purity of the cost price alignment is this the rate design portion of it. Next month, we're going

1:14:01 to talk in more detail around the programmatic support that we will develop for certain classes of customers that can be very targeted and that can be something that the board also addresses from a policy perspective um that can help certain parts of our population that the board believes uh is warranted. So there is a kind of a purity around consumption and driving consumption behavior on the rate side alignment with cost. Separate from that the programmatic side that can then supplement and take care of some of the community values and benefits that the board wishes to pursue and do that very specifically. >> Okay. Um, and then I I guess the last point I would make is I would be aligned

1:14:48 with Mindy and and Sonia in the fact and we've seen this in other instances where we just fall behind and then we try and make it all up in one fell swoop. And it it just if we can try it, you know, if it if we look I know doing the full cost of service analysis is is time consuming and and expensive obviously you know that's why we haven't done them as as often as we need to probably but um if we can make them more incremental rather than uh you know 35 40% jump in a single charge. That would be helpful.

1:15:38 Mindy and then Sonia, >> just really quick, I think what would be helpful, at least for me in the future, is that um when we look at the we're looking at at changing like fixed costs or things like that, if maybe in some of the background information, we could be given some scenarios because when you do look at this chart, the electric residential bill impacts, it looks highly regressive, but hearing Frank say that some of those people in the highest uh the lowest or the one people that are paying the most could be people that aren't here all year round. And that doesn't necessarily mean that they're lower income. And so I don't know who uses less than 152 kilowatts per hour. You know, I don't this isn't my world, so I can't look at this chart and know like, oh, this is the type of customer

1:16:23 that does that. So, I think just in the future it would be helpful if there was like maybe some um fleshing out and some scenarios to help us better understand who these customers are rather than just a 10% band on a chart. >> And we are working on data segmentation, right? >> Uh but again, there's not a correlation between income and usage. those uh our limited income residents utilize the electricity at very similar rates to the total population. So that so at the at the higher usage ends uh they um are no longer subsidizing

1:17:09 uh lower usage customers. Sonia. >> Well, so we had the report that came out that talked a bit about our like the rental housing versus the low-inccome. I mean, I think it should be a part of this discussion if we can bring some of that um information back to the the picture. Um and I I guess I was holding my comments about direction because I thought we were doing that after public um public comment, but you kind of jumped into it on how you feel about it. So, I'm going to jump into it, too, because this is exactly why I raised the comment. I think that we should use more gradualism um in getting to that fixed rate charge instead of doing a full 33%. And I know that that will then impact the other rates because some you have to

1:17:55 get the cost somewhere. Um and so then then that idea then shifts the costs that we have on a kilowatt hour rate basis. But we don't want to do that unless we understand kind of that impact on those lowest income folks. And it's just if if we weren't in the current times where there are so many people that are, you know, unemployed that are just barely thriving. Um, you know, we wouldn't have this maybe it wouldn't as be as dire a discussion, but $9 could really make or break somebody. So, I just I I do want to um be cognizant of that next month when we vote on this. And I think it's going to be important to see this scenario versus the other scenario where that's broken down and what that that

1:18:40 impact might be if that's possible. >> Frank, >> yeah, I was just I was just going to say that um we will have an update next month on our ECC programs. So I think you have to look at the rates in combination with the programs and the the if you recall the concentric the ven diagram that that I drew when you drill down into looking for rentals low income high usage high bill combinations we've done an analysis to narrow that down to a very specific percentage and so um and and then looking to make adjustments in the programs to help with the issues that you're you're talking about because

1:19:26 if we don't do that, we can be um the unintended consequence we can be helping people that don't need it, which restricts help from those who do. >> So for me, I mean, if I look at this and we could say, okay, the distribution of, you know, the ECC cares money is in this range. I mean, that would be helpful to see because then it's like, all right, yes, they're charged X, but they get $280 off. So, really, the full impact to that particular group of people is fully mitigated. I mean, we can't see that with this. So, I just saw a little head nod. It seems like you're working on it. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> I can look over my shoulder to get the expertise head nod if I need to. So, Tim, >> yeah, thank you, chair. Yeah, my I mean my goal is not to beat up staff over

1:20:12 trying to take five different sets of numbers and combine them all into one. And I'm not implying that any of my my colleagues here are doing that, but um I this is my I also exist in this space in a day job and I understand how obscenely difficult it is to to get and organize and and coordinate these numbers. So um I truly understand. Um I think the one thing that I do see here especially with this screen is I there is no I cannot imagine a universe in which like a single family an apartment uh a customer who is just living their life is at that 1801 and over there they're just feels like it is a very large unit that is

1:20:57 that is using those funds. Um, you know, these are the the McMansions up in who knows where. But, uh, that that is where where my brain is is is looking at that that difference there where there's a a refund of $17 uh or 17 cents, excuse me. Um, and recognizing again, you know, highlighting my day job in, you know, especially with seniors on social security, $9 is the difference between housed and homeless. like it is it is there is a very clear path there for um a lot of our very lowincome community who just can't shoulder this burden. Um and I think it's it's worthy of significant consideration. I am deeply interested in next month's rate design conversation and our program design

1:21:42 conversation and how we're addressing that. And also just recognizing that the the slide right after this talks about our general service bill impacts and that that disparity of that 17% uh difference for 0 to 250 does not seem to be the same reflection for for our general service and our commercial businesses. Um, so I it is a cause for concern um, from my perspective, for my ward, for the people that we serve. Um, >> yeah. Thanks. >> Okay. And lastly, you know, I I would like to say I'm I'm a perfect example. I brought up the my basic charge that I'm getting charged. I can't afford that, right? I but it it brought it to my you

1:22:27 know when I looked at that bill I you know I just just rented this place and it's like okay oh know if I was living in an apartment that had low usages because a lot of apartments they're they're kilowatt hours are very low you know I that's what brought it to the front of my mind was it was seeing the disparity of somebody with a low usage being having their bill impacted that much. So that's why and and I am the case of somebody that can afford it, right? I'm lucky enough to be in that position, but I I know that there are people out there that aren't as fortunate as I and I want to make sure that we what we do going forward looks out for all of our customers. John,

1:23:12 >> so if we're going to have this further discussion, which I think is warranted, then can you give us an example? I mean because I can't imagine you a residence in any do solid where 600 800 square feet using less than 600 kilowatt. I mean you you got a refrigerator, you got hot water, you got lights, you got a stove. Can you give us examples of what that kilowatt usually would be? We're small a studio apartment, a one-bedroom apartment, things such as that because I think that's where we're going. We're not going with people storing cars. We're going with people where they live. And if we're trying to make that adjustment, I think we need to be fair to that conversation about, you know, what is that basic because um I couldn't imagine uh Indian residential not using 250. I mean just just to heat the hot water

1:23:59 or run a refrigerator, >> right? >> Yeah. I think there's a what what we will do uh Commissioner Brown, other other commissioners is to bring back some examples. um I think was referred to as scenarios. Um in combination with some of the things we're looking to do at do programmatically, the the thing that I want to caution us about is developing prices and rates based on who we think should pay more and who we think should pay less. These are the analysis of where the costs drive it. And so we know that businesses have certain cost profiles, number of accounts, um, and other things. And if, if we're deciding we want to charge

1:24:45 these this group more than that group, that creates a very dangerous precedent going forward. Now, we also understand that we have impacts on on people and we want to exercise gradualism and we want to be fair in how we're we're pricing this. And it it is, you know, the more you use the the more you pay. But I think the full context what I'm hearing from the board is, and we love numbers, by the way, Commissioner Morris, so we we can do this all day long. Um, we we do need to provide some some more context relative to sort of use cases, examples, as well as programmatic impacts um to give the board a little bit greater view of the the different scenarios. And so,

1:25:32 um, that's, I guess, kind of the advice and feedback that that I'm hearing is more context, more idea of kind of who this affects, how it affects them in combination with some of the the program knowledge that we're developing. >> Had a couple comments just to address some of the questions. The first was in September, we provided some information on the overall customer class of residential customer class versus limited income. The one area where there was significant difference was in the sup in the very low usage. And I think that's kind of to John's point. The limited income at the low usage was there was less customers at that very low 0 to 250. And we were hypothesizing that those are probably disproportionately like rentals of

1:26:18 people that are aren't there, people that are part-time here. So that might not be representing limited income in that lowest usage bracket that has the highest increase. And then the other point was just we did see people in each bracket at the limited income level. So there is pe there are people right now that are paying $314 a month that are limited income that are potentially subsidizing the lower usage customers. So their bill their limited income their bills are 315. We're saying to not raise those more if there's that subsidy and make their bills higher. So that's kind of the like even though people are struggling with the n $9 increase or $7 increase at the lowest level there's probably more people you know we think there's probably people struggling to pay the 315 that are limited income that might not be

1:27:04 McManes. There might just be a lot of people living in a small inefficient house. So that's kind of the there are people that are limited income programs in that bracket though. >> Great. Thank you all for the conversation. Um, we didn't have to we didn't have to push it up. We're actually a little bit past time as my colleague is showing me right now. Um, there. Yes, Frank. >> I don't know if you wanted to double check to see if there was any public input. Um, probably should go through that. >> Yeah. No, that's that was my next item. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Yeah. Um, so yeah, next item on the agenda is a public hearing on proposed budgets and prices. Do we have anybody signed up?

1:27:52 And this again for you people in the audience, if you didn't know, there is a public hearing on what we just discussed. If you'd like to sign up and talk to it, feel free raise your hand and we'll have you come on up. So, I'm going to open the public hearing. See if there's anybody who wants to yak at us. All right. I don't see anybody, so I will close the public hearing. Now we move on to this seems redundant. >> So how we typically would do it is we would give the presentation go to public comment and then ask questions. >> Okay. >> But we did questions. >> Well, okay. So if if there's anybody

1:28:38 else who has more questions or discussions on this or direction, I guess we'll do the Tim rule. Is there anything from us that you didn't get that you would like to know about? >> Question for you. I heard a combination, sorry, I heard a combination of asks and I want to make sure that collectively uh we've gathered what uh Julie's group uh will be bringing forward in December and coupled in coupled with ours. >> Well, I I think to be nice, I got more than what I bargained for in this one. Um but all but all great. You know, I I really do um recognize that this is the

1:29:26 most impactful area that we commonly address. Combination of staff and and the board and the guidance becomes really important. The context becomes really important. I I I have lots of notes. Um, I'll be working with Anna and Julie's group and Greg on some of the programmatic impacts and then um, we'll take a look at a couple of of adjustments um, options um, and scenarios on the on the rate side. So, it it was very valuable input and um, really healthy debate and back and forth and I really appreciate that. So, >> so correct me if I'm wrong. Um, the budgets are based on a 90% water year, correct? because we used to be 85 and we've had very very long debates and he

1:30:11 keed discussions about that in prior boards. Um but I'm looking at these statistics in the next presentation about from 2019 to 25 of the seven last years were below 90%. 2023 and 2024 were the 72nd 71st worst years out of the last 78 years. And we're budgeting that we're going to get money that we're not going to get. for spending money because we used to do 85%. We had a big fight over it. I'm Ron Farmer. I'm going to send a position paper for his email about why we shouldn't go from 85% to 90%. But can you when we go to into the future, I'd like to be convinced of why we're still budgeting for money that we're not getting because we we the water years are getting worse and uh

1:30:57 we're trending back to where we were at 85%. and question. >> You got to go Deborah and then Frank. >> Thank you. Well, I did uh I did want to acknowledge that ask that that we will bring more information about the risks that we're mitigating. That includes uh prices as well as volume. So, it's not all centered on weather. It is an area of concern for us that we continue to watch and we'll make notes to have a more robust discussion when we bring back the long-term financial plan uh around those assumptions.

1:31:43 I'll I'll uh answer your question, Commissioner. Um the conservatism that used to be captured solely in the 90 90% water versus 85% water is now captured in what we call the contribution margin risk factor. It's some built-in conservatism that captures the combination of low water, low consumption or um in our case that's were long low market prices. And so it is built in to what's generating the margin and the reserve to cover that 90% water risk. So it is in the budget. It's just not called out by itself as a 85 to 90%. It's a combination of three different aspects that we built into a conservative number on the wholesale revenue side.

1:32:33 I will convince you at some point right before I retire. >> Other questions or comments? So even >> so I just wanted to get head nons because I I don't think that we you know I expressed an an interest in potentially lowering or having some more gradualism but I don't know that we got great direction that that the board wanted that or if there were just one or two of us. So, I was just curious if Frank was going to actually if you all were going to bring back something that was gradualism continued on the fixed rate or if that's not the board's desire. >> I personally can hold my nose and and move forward with this budget.

1:33:27 I feel like um we we did discuss this like we've seen all the charts about the kind of the trueing up and um while I don't like the idea of giving such a big jump I do think like at some point we need to true it up so that we're not constantly playing catchup. So, um I think that I would support what we've what we've proposed just so that we don't continuously get ourselves into this situation. >> I I would support conversation of gradualism >> in the future about gradualism, but about this budget. I mean, this isn't creating money that we don't have to spend. This is money that we have to spend that that we I mean we have to

1:34:12 keep the operations going. We have to keep doing what we're doing with this and and it is a and we're going to hold our nose while we do it. But I think I agree with Sonia and Tim about stopping this process and doing the future about gradualism. But I think for this particular jump, I think to me that trains left the station and we we all discussed this. We've got a budget. We're ready to go. Um, and we we've already stopped a lot of projects and if we don't do this, I mean, if we cut it back, then what then what's going to give? >> Give I pose the question if you don't mind. Um, I mean, from my perspective, it wasn't a change on that. It was that you would adjust the other rates to

1:34:57 accommodate it. So, it's not changing the size of the pie, although I would love for it to decrease. I know that we're not in that place. Um, so thank you. I appreciate the thought because I wasn't sure after you raised that what where we were at. >> Right. Um, one one clarification, Commissioner Carlson. Um, are you looking specifically at the the the basic charge on the residential side? Is that >> That was the basic charge on the residential side, but it sounds like there's not in uh enough interest from the full board to make that happen. So, sounds like we'll move forward as is and we won't need that. But I would still like to be able to see the impact of the uh EC cares funds on each of those

1:35:43 brackets so we can get a better sense of where the true need is and how much we're covering. >> I think we're consistent with that for sure. And um during our during check-ins with commissioners, I can give you a little bit of of what the tradeoff between fixed and variable rate impacts kind of look like. You know, does this kind of dollar translate into this kind of of um variable costs? Just just so you have a feel going forward. >> All right. [clears throat] Thank you. I I uh you know, I just want to close by saying this was a good a good discussion. I I appreciate it. And you know, you started off the presentation talking about we're at a this is a $480

1:36:28 million budget. So it it it deserves this type of a conversation. You know, when we get a packet that's that's a 100 pages long on the budget and it's $480 million. I don't want it to end up as a consent calendar. Yay. I'm put passing this on. this is what affects our employees, our customers, and the whole community. So, having this type of a conversation is is absolutely warranted, and I appreciate all the work that staff's done to put it together and the the robust conversation we had as a board. So, with that, is there anything else you need? >> Thank you for the conversation. Yeah, we don't we don't need anything.

1:37:14 But I would also just like to thank commissioners because we we don't approach these as a rubber stamp. We do approach these as we want to get our ducks in a row so that we feel like we understand the questions and the trade-offs. And so it is very valuable to us and we will bring back information next month that we think is just that much more useful. So thank you. >> Thank you. All right, we've got item number 12, the upcoming legislative session preview. This would be Jason. All right. Hopefully I'm coming in loud and clear and you can see me. Okay. >> Yeah. Great. Um, well, good evening.

1:38:00 It's good to see you all. For the record, I'm Jason Huer, EW Webb's public policy and government affairs director. I was with you all uh I guess it was September to talk a little bit about what we thought was going to be happening uh in the 2026 session. Of course, I hadn't seen any bill drafts at the time. So, this evening is a status update and perhaps a report card of sorts on one of the two bills uh that we're watching, carbon cap and trade. Uh next slide, please. >> We don't have slides. >> Oh, are the slides showing? Yeah, we do. >> Okay. All right. Uh, this one, it's just a picture. I always want to have one picture in. Next slide, please.

1:38:47 All right. Uh, the first bill we'll be talking about is status update on carbon capp trade legislation. Um, I told you before in September, this one's a long shot. I, uh, would still say it's the long shot. I've, uh, upgraded its chances from single digits. I'm willing to go to 10%, maybe a little bit more. Um, more than likely this is going to be a dress rehearsal for the long session in 2027. Uh, but I can absolutely tell you there is a bill draft being worked on right now. There will absolutely be a bill introduced in the 2026 session. It will have a co-sponsor from at least one legislator in each political party and it will absolutely have public hearings and be worked on. Um it certainly is the opening chapters of what I expect will

1:39:32 be a more serious effort and a greater chance of passage in the long 2027 session. Um wanted to talk a little bit about some of the um design elements that EWB cares about. Um the first one point of regulation. We've uh for a long time always advocated that the best point of regulation is to go as far upstream as possible in the electric sector. There's a real journey here on the point of regulation. There was a 2017 bill that was downstream loadbased retail electric load. It was probably a reflection of a world we lived in at the time where other policies like the renewable portfolio standard as well as DEEQ greenhouse gas reporting protocols were

1:40:17 all loadbased, retail load oriented. Uh it was familiar to people. People like what uh some things that are familiar. Um, we spent a lot of time uh educating folks on why that was not a very effective way to reduce emissions in the electric sector. Um I'm happy to say that in 2019 when the bill returned after very vigorous and even bruising debate at times um we all eway played a big role in negotiating a mid-stream hybrid approach uh for the point of regulation that was better than downstream but not especially satisfying either when we knew um a true upstream uh point of regulation was superior.

1:41:02 Well, um I I feel like uh Ew Webb's done a lot of work and educ and educated people, but the biggest thing that's changed the conversation in Oregon on this topic is what the state of Washington did in 2021 when they passed the Climate Commitment Act. They tr chose a true upstream point of regulation modeled very closely after California's upstream point of regulation. I think it's fair to say that sort of ended the debate. Regional linkage, as you know, is very important. I think now that California and Washington are so aligned in their program design, uh it gave Oregon nowhere to go and it's actually there there really hasn't even been that much debate or disagreement this time around uh with stakeholders in the electric sector. Uh so I'm happy about that. It

1:41:47 was a bruising fight in the past. Um I'm happy not to have to have that type of uh uh back and forth this time around. Moving along, uh there is some work to be done on definitions of specified sources of electricity. Um specifically, there needs to be a provision that a claim to a specified source of electricity. That specified just means it's either a definite technology or fuel or that it comes from a specific system of resources like the Bonavville Power Administration system, which is very low carbon. Anytime there's a claim about a specified source, it needs to have be accompanied by a written contract between the buyer and the seller. Uh that's very important for um

1:42:35 uh certainty for buyers and sellers. It's also a component that helps command a premium for clean electricity sources like hydro power. This is very important to Bonavville. It may be important to e webb as well. Um, if Bonavville is able to get a premium in a carbon pricing market, which by the way, that that's uh that's intentional. A a well-designed environmental program on carbon will give clean resources a premium. Um, Bonavville, if they can get a premium, that improves their secondary revenues when they sell surplus electricity. Uh, BPA has costbased rates, so those secondary revenues um can be funneled in to help uh try to keep rates lower for Bonavville customers. So that's something we care about. Uh we're in okay shape, but there's a little bit of

1:43:20 work to be done to uh refine the language on written contracts. Uh the next topic is uh free carbon allowances. Um right now what I'm seeing in the bill draft, there are free allowances that would be allocated to consumer own utilities like EW. The details on the methodology would be left to rule making. I think it's expected that uh there would be an allocation of free allowances. Again, the allowances are a permit to emit a ton of carbon. These allowances would be allocated on a utilities electric load and emissions forecast for EWE. That's going to be a pretty familiar thing. Um we probably already do this sort of thing as part of the IRP process. For other utilities

1:44:08 that don't do IRPs, they get most of their power from Bon most or all of their power from Bonavville. Uh, Bonavville may voluntarily play a role in assisting those utilities with the forecasts. Um, lastly, I by the way, apolog I I feel really good about this. Um, I I won't do the ABC uh grading, but I I think these are all very acceptable outcomes. They're very consistent with what EW Webb knows to be best practices for designing a carbon cap and trade program. I think they all facilitate re regional linkage to California and Washington. So, um pretty feeling pretty good about what we're seeing in the draft there. The last one is one um that I do want to flag because I think it's

1:44:53 really important for us to step up our efforts on advocacy and education on this topic. It's the matter of revenue recycling. Revenue recycling is a concept where revenues that are collected in a carbon capp trade program are returned back to the economic or societal sectors from which they're collected from. Um often to help those sectors pay for greenhouse gas emission reduction measures. If program uh revenue isn't recycled at all, if there was zero revenue recycling and that revenue was for general government purposes unrelated to emission reductions, it can effectively double the cost of the program to uh the Oregon economy and Oregonians. This is because compliance entities would face not only

1:45:38 the cost of paying for carbon allowances but would also face the cost of paying for greenhouse gas reduction measures without help from the carbon program revenues. And we we know all this because it was a a component of a study that e webb co-sponsored in 2017 performed by the economics firm E3. We studied the low least cost approaches to uh policy approaches at the state level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Revenue recycling is a key component that makes carbon pricing the least cost policy. It's been kind of a a bedrock principle for EWB to support least approaches. Um so there's a big unknown on whether or not revenue recycling is

1:46:25 going to be um a component of the program or to what extent. And so I I think it's a pretty consensus staff position at EW Webb that we would want to withhold support uh for the bill until we know more about how the program revenue would be used. And I think we have an opportunity um to try to um educate folks on just why revenue recycling is so important to a well-designed carbon program. And I've been talking with people on the uh House and Senate Energy Committees. Um, but I I'm happy to um continue to expand our outreach and education efforts to other legislators as well um with the time we have left between now and um the um the

1:47:11 upcoming legislative session. So, um that's that's the story on carbon. Um I if it's all right, I'll take questions at the end if if you can wait. I also wanted to talk about solar consumer protection. Uh, this bill is familiar to you because I talked about it in September and it's also a repeat from 2025, a bill that was hung up uh for technical reasons and didn't get over the finish line. Um, all the folks that uh reached a consensus support position on this bill last session and crucially that includes the Oregon Solar Industries Association. We've all teamed up again to bring the bill back for the 2026 session. I'm very confident about the chances of passage. Uh we have the

1:47:56 bill draft. There's just a few last uh minute tweaks that we're making. Some of the key components that would protect Oregon consumers include a 72-hour uh right of recision, a right to cancel. Um that's to address high pressure sales tactics. There's also a required model written disclosure that includes important information that consumers would need. For example, a good faith utility bill savings estimate using the local utility rate and the utilities policy on the disposition of surplus uh net meter generation. Um also informing customers that if they don't have a storage component, uh the installation will not provide power during outages. transparency on tax credits, letting

1:48:42 people know that um if they don't have a tax liability, they may not be able to avail themselves to those credits. Uh I think it even has a special message about if you're on a fixed income, you very likely may not be able to take advantage of tax credits. Um important uh information for consumers. There's increased enforcement authority for DOJ. this uh model written disclosure is sort of a safe harbor for good faith um installer or good actor installers I should say um if they adhere to that they'll be in the clear folks that deviate from the disclosure DOJ will be able to go after and enforcement there's also an enhanced private right of action um against folks

1:49:27 that deviate from the disclosure that's a that's an important deterrent because Oregon DOJ has finite resources So having a private right of action as a deterrent um will also be an important uh component of um reigning in bad behavior. Um and in closing, I just wanted to make sure folks knew, you know, EW Webb played a pretty big role in getting this off the ground in 2025. We we worked with a lot of Washington utilities through the public generating pool. Washington passed a law like this. We heard about it from Washington folks that uh briefed us on it and we sort of played a facilitation role uh bringing stakeholders together in Oregon last session. Um and I'm happy to say that the solar industry now they've really

1:50:12 taken this one by the horns and uh uh we we're happy to ride shotgun with them and the rest of the stakeholders now in 2026. And um I'm confident this one will pass. Um although it's there's always a little bit of an ordeal to get something into law, but uh feel pretty good about where we are on this. And uh it's been a while since I think EW's been invited to a bill signing. I'm sure this is one we would be and I hope that comes to fruition. Um, and I I also really want to give a shout out to u my e-web colleague Juan Serpa Munos who provided invaluable technical expertise and did a lot of constructive outreach to the solar industry as we got folks pointing in the right direction on this one. And the last topic I have before I take

1:50:58 questions, uh, there's one item you're not seeing on this list. It's wildfire liability. Um that's still a crucial issue that the legislature needs to deal with in the future. But last year's bill I think was such a bruising um you know struggle the legislators frankly just didn't want they needed some time to I think uh recover and come up with a different plan and they will not be taking that up in the short session. But I certainly expect that to be back u in the future in 2027. And that's all I got. Uh happy to take questions. Tim, >> thank you chair. Thank you, Jason, for the uh the synopsis and uh I appreciate every time I listen to you, I always learn something, so I appreciate it. Um,

1:51:43 two questions uh for the capp trade bill. Uh so I can't even remember last session if it was introduced or just discussed or rumored. Um but given the fast timeline of of it, it didn't go very far the last session and um this session only has 30 some odd days. Is from your professional perspective, do you think the legislators will be introducing like a framework or workg group as like an introductory for the short session? or do you think they're going to have a completed bill with full written language out ready to be introduced with an expectation that it might go forward into 2027? >> Yeah, the the I would say I would say

1:52:29 that their ambition and and they really there's two legislators that are really have the pin right now and that are formulating this and um you know they're going to have to make the case to their colleagues that they have a fully formed bill that's ready for prime time. But I would say their ambition is to try to have this fleshed out. There's always the possibility that they could try to delegate quite a few things to rulemaking processes primarily at uh Oregon DEEQ and there's precedent for that. The California program was largely designed through rulemaking. Um and rulem sometimes has some advantages. um there's some agility uh that rulem provides and if there are tweaks you need to make in the future you don't have to pass a new law you can come back

1:53:15 and go through another rule making um but I would say the in order to get the political support for this and get buyin from a very long list of stakeholders I think a lot of folks are hesitant to leave things to rulemaking they're going to want to see it in the bill and so there's definitely going to be a sprint and and I I could underscore that uh a sprint to get that done uh by the start of February and I think it's going to be tough to do. So, and I I I would not bother me if this ultimately were kicked to a more robust uh negotiating table with workg groups and public process in 2026 because it is complex stuff. um

1:54:02 I've been working on it for several years and there are still some components that um I I still find very complex uh even after years of experience with it. So it they're going to try to do it but I I think ultimately they're going to learn the hard way. Uh you got to take the time it takes to design this to design this program by by statute. >> Got it. Thank you uh for for that. And if memory serves, I think the bill draft deadline is in two weeks. So, good luck to them and all them involved. Um, cool. The second thing is on the uh um reintroduction of House Bill 3955. Um, so the city of Eugene just put out a survey considering a home energy score

1:54:47 um requirement ordinance. I think Portland also maybe successfully or attempted to, I can't remember, a home energy score requirement as well. Would this bill do you think that this bill would interact with those policies that are passed at localities or are they just separate enough that it wouldn't affect either way? >> I I think due to their local nature of those programs and because they're statewide, I don't think the uh the the reintroduction of this bill would interact with those those programs which u are local in nature. Um, I I can I can double check on that, but I I feel pretty safe saying there probably would not be any interplay. >> Great. Thank you.

1:55:33 >> Discussion, >> any other discussion? The only other thing I was going to say was the the bespoke fabrication and the rule making. Any progress since the AISC put out? >> Yeah, so they they just started a u a listening session process um and there's a written comment period. I've never seen uh listening sessions done uh preceding a rule making. Uh so that's sort of interesting, but it's very early in the game. Although um I think we did we've learned a lot about the bill um in

1:56:20 that process. Um namely there are some exceptions for electric infrastructure um specifically of the utility like distribution systems and generation sources. So that is probably um a relief to see that uh there definitely are some exemptions in the bill based on the statute that uh the the bill was attached to. So um that doesn't do anything for the water side, but uh at least the electric sector, we may have um uh some exemptions on that side of things. And then there's uh more and more I think a feeling that um this may not be enforceable for um uh work that's done overseas and maybe even out of state. So that's a little more

1:57:06 information than we had before, but uh we're still uh at the cusp of the beginning of that rule making and we'll keep you informed on that one and we'll definitely be weighing in along the way. Um, ultimately I think the key is we want to differentiate so that this really only applies to really truly unique one-time um uh uh products that are ordered and not things that are reusable uh or of everyday use. Um and and that's that's the real I think uh trick here is is making that distinction and finding the right language to do that. >> Thank you. what what other industries were in the room with you when they were in that working group? >> Uh so they had three different days and

1:57:51 uh I did not attend the business the the private sector business community one. I I was there for the one for local governments. Uh so I can only speak to that one. We had excellent uh representation from counties, cities, universities, even the ODOT was there. Really really strong representation across the board. Um I'd have to check on the the one for the private sector. There was also a listening session for um labor. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay, with that we'll let you go. Thank you for all your work. >> Thank you. I'll see you in December. Appreciate the opportunity to update you. >> Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is a break till let's call it 8 o'clock.

1:58:44 15 minutes. 15 minutes. It's supposed to go till 8:05. Five.

2:13:51 realignment recommendation to be general manager Lawson. >> President Barovski, commissioners, uh good evening. Uh for the audio record, Frank Lawson, general manager. wanted to take the opportunity this evening to provide you with uh a quick update on the status of what uh had originally started out as a Mackenzie Valley Service Territory study um that um was in cooperation with with Lane Electric. Um at the end of last week, uh Lane Electric did authorize their general manager, Scott Co. uh the authority to negotiate the purchase of uh potential purchase of assets in the Mackenzie

2:14:37 Valley uh and the transfer of EW service territory in that particular region. the some of the some of this was discussed earlier under the under the budget um title. Thank you. Um but I also um wanted to just acknowledge that uh there's a number of steps left. Um and um this really is a recognition of a change in the phase from more of a study to um more of a uh negotiation or the initiation of a negotiation. Um the um exchange of details so far and potential options has looked promising

2:15:22 promising enough to uh start looking at the potential structure uh of the of an agreement. Um what I wanted to take the opportunity this evening to discuss with commissioners um was um at some point um it could be as early as next month um I could um bring a resolution uh to this board um authorizing me to negotiate and execute a potential transfer and sale of the assets. And so I wanted to make sure that um you had the opportunity this evening to lay out any particular uh items or content or things that you wanted to make sure that

2:16:08 we were considering in that process um or things that might be structured into a resolution. Uh it could be areas that um you need more education on. could be things that um we could discuss further um as part of the resolution. But I wanted to and using Jason's words create my own little miniature uh listening session a very I shouldn't say miniature that sounds demeaning more focused um um listening session around the topic so that I can make sure that uh I'm addressing any particular issues that that you may have. Um I do know that as part of granting the authority uh lane electric granting authority to their

2:16:53 general manager um there were conditions and restrictions uh along with that including that in um his particular case he does need to get uh review and approval of of any potential contract. What we have typically done at e webb is to grant authority to the general manager within the guidance that you provide and then um the negotiation and execution um as long as it's within those guideposts um are able to to move forward. And so um we're talking about a little over 3,000 somewhere between 3,00 and 3,300 customers that EWB has in the territory. um a pretty significant

2:17:38 amount of of asset space in the sense of size of service territory. Um much of that you do have in and have had in various pieces of background material. So, uh, President Barovski, I really at this point, uh, wanted to take the opportunity. I did make notes earlier in the conversation, uh, had around the the budgeting process, some of the, um, questions around financial impact, um, which is obviously an important key consideration. Um, but I did want to open it up uh to uh listen to the board, understand your issues, and also potentially answer some questions, but really more um gather the kinds of questions that might need additional research at this time. So, with that,

2:18:23 President Bar, I'll turn it back to you and be happy to entertain any comments or questions. >> Okay, we'll start with Tim and go around the room. >> Great. Thank you, chair. Um yeah, I was really um heartened. No, that's not a word. I was really happy to see that um uh during a listening session with the community that there seems to be um some broad support of of this transition as well. So I that was one of the things that I think I was deeply interested in knowing. Um, I think the the only other thing that really came to mind from my perspective, this there there seems to be a clear outline, there seems to be clear direction. Um, and so I want to leave space for my colleagues to to be

2:19:08 able to jump in, but um, one thing I'm not noticing is if uh, this service territory transition is successful and goes forward, is there job loss expected on the e webb side? um or will those staff be transitioned who are dedicated out in those areas? Would they be transitioned elsewhere? What does that look like? >> Yeah, I I think um um probably not specifically I I'll say a target list or a hit list of any type where we're looking at um a potential downsizing. um it's really an issue of more focused uh there might be some open positions that we choose to redirect um in in other areas but but we're not expecting as part of a of a transition to have a

2:19:54 layoff of any time for example. So um this is really about focusing the organization on the key work that we have uh in the territory that will remain uh which is really our critical um part of our of our community here in Eugene. Um and also recognizing that some of the benefits that you mentioned that people have acknowledged is uh direct representation on a board. Um this this is a significant lift for Lane Electric. this represents about a 25% increase roughly in their uh the number of customers. So they they recognize that investment. They also um that direct representation coupled with the fact that they can interconnect it with other parts of the McKenzie Valley. So um but not not looking at a direct

2:20:41 reduction in force because of this. >> Thank you. >> And several just trivia questions. So, um, we have a separate tree trimming contract with two and a half crews, I think, that are dedicated just off river. That'll go away. Correct. >> Yeah. Tree trimming would be a significant area of opportunity for us to reduce cost. >> And the physical assets like the eight or 10 houses that we own up there for staff, is that are they going to stay or are we going to probably liquidate those two? >> Well, we'll have to take a look at those, Commissioner. And those are not just for distribution support. In many cases those are for generation which does remain. Um there there may be some interest on Lane Electric's part in some of those or not. Um that'll be a detail

2:21:26 that we would discuss but those those are typically for other purposes. and the 6% silt since they're no longer customers of EWB and the 6% goes to the city that will that be a rate reduction for them or is that just embedded into this cost because technically they won't be paying that 6% silk anymore? >> The the 6% that they pay on on our um bill is based on revenue that retail revenue. >> Um that would be really more of a net comparison rate to to rate. um they're going to have a new rate with Lane Electric. Lane Electric will have to incorporate their costs as as they do. We know that um initially going into this were comparable in in rates. They

2:22:11 have a higher basic charge. When you look at apples to apples, they're they're pretty close. Um that would be before the roughly 20% that we're forecasting through the KOSA. Um but it wouldn't be split. It wouldn't be a rate reduction in the sense of that it's just a overall rate versus overall rate and what gets incorporated in that. >> Um I don't know that I have any specific guidance, but I just want to say that I'm um highly supportive of this. Um I feel like there lane electric is a rural utility and it's definitely better suited to um serve customers up river and also um the one thing that we

2:22:58 consistently hear from uprivers is that they want some kind of representation and that won't happen with eweb and this is a way that gets them a seat at the table where they can be participants in their electric utility. So I'm highly supportive The the one piece of push back I would have on that commissioner is that um I do believe that this board um you in particular in the role and previously commissioner Brown in in the role um of the atlarge commissioner has have done a a really tremendous job with the outreach that we we have done in in the community. um the representation part is structural and they will have um

2:23:45 direct voting rights within that utility and I think that has been something we've heard from the community and we want to acknowledge that and and recognize that that's a benefit of this. Um but I would also say that as an organization we've been very attentive to that area. We will continue to have a presence both through generation and the fact that it's our our sole drinking water source. And so, um, it is not, um, done so that we can abandon the territory. We, we think we'll have a a pretty strong presence there into the future. Um, but I would push back a little bit and say that we have represented their interests. Um, although not in a voting capacity,

2:24:30 >> I would just say that I'm also very supportive and echo the comments that Mindy made about, you know, what we hear up river when we attend. Um, I hope that this does, you know, meet their needs. There will be local. The people that are there fixing their lines are very close. Um, I also think it will help our, um, travel impacts and our costs. And so, I'm I'm looking forward to having that better align with the community. Um, and I don't have anything else except for this. It feels like we're all kind of like, yeah, this is great. Let's do it. Um, but I don't want that to take away the pressure of getting us, you know, a fair deal. So, if we don't feel like there's a fair deal, then I will push against it. Just to throw that out

2:25:16 there. [laughter] >> Commissioner Carlson, I'm I'm glad you mentioned that it is and is intended to be a negotiation. Um the the good news is that I think both utilities are im you know embarking on this looking at long-term value and opportunity. We're not trying to make a quick buck on a territory and they're not trying to get a steal of a deal. And so I think the intent is good um from from both utilities. Um although there is there are areas and a lot of details to negotiate and determine and I think we're entering that in in a in a good way. Um, okay. I put myself in the queue. Couple quick questions. First one kind

2:26:01 of goes to what John talked about the properties that we have this properties that we have up there. Would Lloyd Knox Park be part of the transfer? >> Would they be interested in Lloyd Knox Park? >> I've tried to pedal a number of things to Lane Electric, of which they're not interested, including Leeberg. I I told them I would wrap $50 million around Leeberg and they could take it. Um, no is the answer to that to to that. Uh, Commissioner. >> Okay. So, so for me, one of the the most important things that I want to see come out of this, I mean, obviously financially and for a number of reasons, it checks all the boxes. The thing that that I want to make sure that we try and convey is is the communication side of this. Um, you

2:26:47 know, we've had a presence up the McKenzie for over a hundred years. That's how EW got started was up the McKenzie. You know, you read the book that's sitting in your office there and it it goes back to telling where how we got our start and and how connected we are to that river and that territory. And so I don't want us to come off as looking like we're turning our backs on that area. And so that's the comm's part about this. you know, we really need to get the story out there that we're transferring the electrical side because of it makes the most sense and and tell that story is why it makes sense to do that. But also, we need to keep the

2:27:33 goodwill that we have up there around the river and our source protection and our water because there are going to be people that are that when they get their first lane electric bill and it's higher than the e-web bill, they're going to curse our name, right? And so I just hope that the the communication side of it is handled in a way that I know that we do a great job of doing it. But that's going to be one of the most important parts of this going forward. Especially if we just say take the ball and run, Frank. That's my part of the if you're hanging on to that ball. I want you to make sure that that's something that is is expressed very well. >> Totally agree, Commissioner. Um there's

2:28:18 there's actually two or three aspects of the communications. One is our continued presence. The other is the the logic. Another one is the logic of which we're doing this um both from a lane electric and e webb perspective. And then the third there's quite a bit of just the mechanics of a transfer final bills how loans are hand. There's just a number of the mechanics pieces of how this would be handled with the over 3,000 accounts that are directly affected. So there's multiple layers to the communications. Totally agree that that's a an important critical piece uh of it going forward. And I know our communication step, one of which is sitting in the back um is is well in tune with that. Okay. Um Commissioner Brown mentioned silt. Have

2:29:04 we made the city of Eugene aware that there would possibly be a a reduction in the silt payment going forward? >> Yes, we have. >> Good. don't want to throw them for any curves. We're already hitting them for increased prices for billing. So, um yeah, and then the only other thing I would say is as far as the properties that we have upriver, you know, the uh the generation plant at at Leeberg and the the historic, you know, uh part of that, the art deco, those types of things. I I want to make sure that we keep that and and have uh kind of a plan for that. You know, I mean, that's part of the Leeberg

2:29:49 decommissioning, but it's still it's it's all in the same thing. And there may be questions about that in the communications act. You know, what's going to happen to that that art deco uh generation building and those types of things. >> Yeah, commissioner. I I think it's really important piece of the communications to understand what is actually involved with this. This is distribution assets outside of the substation. Um it is for delivery purposes. We still need a significant amount of substation presence uh for transmission and delivery of generation u that we have up in that region. There may be further discussions around transformation and other kinds of costs going forward. Those are operational costs to be recovered on on our part. Um

2:30:35 but being very clear around what this is and what this is not I think is part of that communications. >> Great. [snorts] Uh so just a followup um that's this is about this is for a talking point for me this is about 50% of our service area correct about half >> from a physical perspective it's not exactly 50 it's some it it's disproportional because it's I think it's roughly 3% of our accounts and probably I heard some number between 25 and 35% of our physical territory >> our geographic area. >> Yeah. So it's significant. I'm just trying to think about the GHD, you know, our next agenda item about the the significant reduction in carbon, not running those big trucks up there and meter readers and everything else for

2:31:20 that huge geographic area for just 3,000 people. It's to me it's going to be a significant reduction. That's a unconsequential, you know, benefit from doing this, but it's not the reason we're doing it, but it's going to be sidebar benefit not having to run those trucks all the way up there just to fix one one service ter, >> right? I think I do think that um when we refer to long-term benefit or long-term value um there's a significant amount of of time um fuel cost um fuel emissions as well as vehicle wear and tear. Those those are things that we'll look at from an avoided cost perspective as we project forward. Um it's a little bit different service model. You could you could argue in

2:32:06 purity that those those emissions may still exist because some now it's now someone else has them, but their distributed model of support is a little bit different than ours. And so the fact that we have to spend an extra hour and a half to two hours with all the time, expense, emissions, wear and tear. Um that that will have a net benefit in some ways. um don't know that we've calculated that into the numbers that you're referring to yet, but it is an opportunity. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um you'll come back with the resolution in December. Is that what you're thinking? >> I'm thinking I'll come back with the resolution in December. I will um make sure that each of you individually is

2:32:52 comfortable. We do have our one-on-one check-ins. And so I want to make sure that if there's any questions that you still have to ask next week when when we get together that I can make sure everything is covered uh in a resolution. But that is that is the thought at this point. There are two steps in between there. I have a steering committee uh review and then I have a riskmanagement committee review which is um part of our policy structure uh given a decision of this size affecting things like power supply. So, a couple steps to get that point, but that's the plan. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, moving on. Ew webb greenhouse gas inventory results.

2:33:46 >> abandon if I'm over here. >> I do not. Thank you though for asking. All right, good evening, commissioners. I'm thrilled to be here. My name is Kelly Hail and I'm the strategy adviser here at EW Webb. Uh I am joined by some colleagues in the audience, John Hart, and I just wanted to give a shout out to another colleague, Jay Heiner, for helping with the analysis tonight. I wanted to thank them for their efforts. Um so I'm here today to do three main three main things. First, I'd like to share the greenhouse gas inventory results for 2024 using a protocol that EW has not used before. Then, I'm going to share what we learned from the new protocol, the lessons learned, and

2:34:31 finally, I'll connect those lessons back to our board policies, uh, SD2, the environmental policy, and SD15, our climate change policy. And I'd like to just give a quick spoiler alert. Uh, as Commissioner Brown noted earlier tonight, we have good news to share. we are on track towards our policybased GH emissions reduction targets. So that's exciting. That said, when we use this new uh e-web protocol or this new to e-web protocol, it does create some challenges or new ways to think about how we have traditionally been measuring our progress towards our policy targets. Uh, it also creates some questions about what the board's intended outcomes are from these targets to ensure that the actions staff are taking are directly

2:35:17 focused on what the board wants to achieve. And while today's presentation is short and mostly focused on sharing these new emission results with you, before I leave today, I hope to have a better understanding of the board's interest and timeline in potentially clarifying these desired outcomes from our policy at a future meeting. You don't have to articulate what you want to accomplish today, but ultimately, is the board interested in making updates to SD2 and SD15? And do you want to do this while general uh general manager Lawson is still in his current position? By knowing that, we can um schedule the next set of discussions to address potential options uh on an appropriate timeline. So, one last quick note about

2:36:02 the slides. In your packet, you'll see that there's a robust set of slides to describe all of the uh inventory results and details. While I don't have time to go through every one of those slides in today's presentation, I do have all of those slides here available. And so if you have any questions, we can pull up any of those slides and address those during the Q&A. So let's start from the big picture. For the last 15 years, EWE has been uh measuring and reporting our greenhouse gas emissions following established greenhouse gas inventory protocols. Uh but we have only been looking at emissions associated with our operations. By using an expanded set of

2:36:47 guidance from the climate registry that is specifically intended for electric utilities, we can understand our emissions better from a wider set of boundaries. This work supports a number of EWB's 2025 uh annual goals, specifically number goal six and number 10. And ultimately, when an organization chooses to do a greenhouse gas inventory, it usually does so to learn three important things. First, we can see what actions we can actually take to address and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Next, we can see where enhanced collaboration with our partners could be needed. And those partners could include policy partners, major suppliers, or e-web's customers, for example. And finally, we can also use an

2:37:32 inventory to be really transparent about how we are taking action and progressing towards the intended outcomes that are outlined in our board policies. So, let's take a look at our emissions results. Uh the slide here is showing um what our emissions results look like by operational category for calendar year 2024. On the slide here, the vertical axis there is shown in units of metric tons of CO2E or carbon dioxide equivalent. Um and the uh uh bars represent the activities that e webb is engaged in that lead to emissions. On the far left hand side you can see

2:38:18 that the orange bars relate to emissions associated with power delivery. The blue bar in the middle are emissions associated with water delivery and the yellow on the far right are emissions associated with e-web operations. The first key takeaway is that the largest emission sources in the inventory are the orange bars that are associated with providing power to our customers. These are emission sources that we have not been measuring under the previous protocol. So let's look at those three large orange bars in the far left side. Owned electricity generation represents fossil fuel emissions combusted in e-web owned power generation equipment. We own a generator at a biomass facility that uses a very small amount of natural gas in their

2:39:04 process and so those emissions um are from that facility. Then we have some losses from friction along our transmission and distribution system and that's what the TND loss represents. And finally are the the largest orange bar represents unspecified market power purchases that are used to balance our portfolio. And because we can't specify exactly what the generation source is, they are assumed to be at a combined cycle natural gas uh plant emissions rate. That's why they're so large. Moving into um the next key takeaway is that under the previous methodology, everything to the right of the orange

2:39:49 bars, so the water delivery emissions and the operational emissions were what was previously considered operational. But there's an important nuance that the new methodology helps us to address. EW has two products that we sell to customers, electricity and drinking water. And while our power customers have been interested for many years in knowing what the carbon intensity of the electricity product is that we sell, we can now also provide a carbon intensity of the drinking water product that we sell. Um the uh water delivery emissions include the electricity associated with running our Hayden Bridgewater treatment plant and the electricity used for water pumping in our transmission and distribution system.

2:40:37 And finally, the far right of this chart shows emissions from e webbown owned vehicles, facilities, and staff travel. We are currently labeling those emissions as operational emissions, but as mentioned under the previous methodology, we have shown progress towards our operational emissions goal, including both the blue and a subset of the yellow emissions. Uh, and that's what's included in in tracking our progress. All right. So, let's focus on what have we learned from doing this inventory. And at the beginning, I mentioned that doing a greenhouse gas inventory helps an organization answer these three questions. So, now it's a time time to apply the learning to those three areas. First, where are the best opportunities for e-web to take direct action to reduce our emissions? And when we think about our power delivery, we can explore

2:41:23 bofuel bofuel opportunities to reduce fossil fuel use in our own electricity generation equipment. And we can look for opportunities to reduce unspecified market uh purchases whenever possible. for our water delivery. The most um viable opportunities for emissions reductions include looking at energy efficiency in our water facilities, which we already do through a robust process through our water um comprehensive planning process, as well as addressing leak detection and our AMI infrastructure can help with that over time as well. And in our operations, we have already made significant progress towards reducing emissions from our fleet. But continuing to electrify our uh pickup truck fleet uh and moving forward with some plans there uh will

2:42:10 have an operational impact on on that sector of emissions. Um, as for where e webb can enhance our partnerships, the GHD inventory process has already uh enhanced our collaboration with many partners including the Oregon DEEQ, the uh Federal Energy Information Administration, Bonavville Power Administration, International Paper and more. And um, as we've uh talked about, this process helps us provide transparency in how we are achieving our board policy targets. And in a moment, I'll show that we are on track with both established uh targets under S15. But through this process, we have noticed opportunities to clarify what those intended outcomes are and explore enhanced options for how we can get to

2:42:55 the next level. So, as you probably remember, um uh SD15 or climate change policy is directive. It um directs the general manager to take action in five different areas. Those are the bolded areas on the slide. And it creates targets for two of those areas that are outlined here. Power generation and e-web operations. And all five areas progress towards all five of those areas are reported annually in the climate guide book. Related to the first target, good news. Eb is on track. When looking at where our power comes from, we use a simple percentage by fuel type methodology. And we can see that in 2024, the resources

2:43:42 that provide power to EW's customers come from sources that are estimated to be 94% carbon-f free. We assume that hydro, nuclear, biomass, wind, solar are all carbon-f free resources. And the 6% come from a small amount of coal and a small amount of natural gas which come from those market purchases that we were talking about. The percent carbon-f free calculation takes all unspecified market purchases and assumes that they match the regional average fuel mixes for the Northwest Power Pool. But this is different from a carbon accounting methodology that takes those unspecified market purchases and assigns a marginal emissions rate of a natural gas plant to all of those power purchases.

2:44:30 When it comes to the second target uh for e-web's operational inventory um uh we can see that um EW has reached our and achieved our 2020 goal of 25% emissions reduction over the 2010 baseline back since 2014. The black dotted line on the on the chart here. And we have achieved our 2030 milestone, a 50% reduction since 2023. So we're several years ahead. Our next milestone is not until 2050 when the policy states that we need to be carbon neutral from our scope one and two operational emissions. And that's what's shown by the dotted green line at the bottom of the of the chart. So on the next couple of slides, I'll include the exact language from the

2:45:15 policy on the targets that we have set and provide a couple of questions to get your creative juices thinking about. These are for future board meetings, right? As we think about if the board uh gives direction tonight that you would like to think about updating the language in the policy, there are a few questions that we could look at. First, um, as we look to, um, our operational emissions targets, when seeing the scale of those operational emissions compared to other parts of our inventory, are scope one and two emissions from our operations still the appropriate boundary? They're some of our smallest emission sources. So, is that still right for the target? As we look to the 2050 carbon neutral target

2:46:01 and trying to make a plan to get there, is the board supportive of using a variety of different tools or tactics to get there, including potentially offsets in a direct in addition to direct emissions reductions. And EWB has already met the 2030 milestone 7 years early and the next milestone isn't from for another 25 years from today, which is 2025. So, is the board interested um in setting an interim milestone between now and 2050? Those are some of the questions that we could explore as we if we got into uh potential policy updates. As we look at the policy um related to power generation, there are other questions to consider. Percent carbon-f free resources is a target that does not

2:46:46 currently conform with GHG protocols or methods. Is there an interest in adjusting that to something that would address emissions from our power supply or power portfolio? The policy goes into some um particular language that talks about trying to um you know achieve 95% uh annual energy from carbon-f free resources by 2030 to the extent possible and practical without distinct adverse impacts to customers. So, we'd like to get some more direction on on how you think about defining distinct adverse impact to customers. Um, there are different ways to think about that and define it. And if the target were missed in a in a year with significant market purchases for

2:47:31 balancing opportunities, would the board want eweb to take additional actions uh such as, you know, purchasing offsets or something like that to address the carbon intensity of those power resources? Finally, there are three areas of the policy that don't have targets. Is that something you would like to set in the future? When it comes to policy SD2, our environmental policy, this one, this policy is a little less directive. It um uh outlines it was it was uh created many years before SD15 and it was designed to just identify areas of focus which we do take um action in in uh all of these areas. Uh but there is some redundancy with SD15 based on these

2:48:17 focus areas. Not all of these are currently being reported on in EW's CLI climate guide book and just curious if the board is interested in having policies that are more directive than SD2 similar to SD15 or if this is uh fine to leave it as is with just this area of focus. So, those are questions for future board meetings. But what I'm really looking for today is to get guidance from you all on is it a board priority to um address SD2 and SD15? Would you like those to be combined into a single policy moving forward? And is gaining clarity relating to SD15's language, methods, metrics, or performance tracking a priority to take on in 2026?

2:49:02 Specifically, again, as I mentioned before, while U. General Manager Lawson is still in his current position or is the board comfortable with having executive leadership and staff using discretion within the existing guideposts of the policy on how we implement this moving forward. And with that, I'll open it up for discussion. Thank you so much. >> All right, we'll start with Sonia. >> Okay, thank you. I have a number of questions. Uh appreciate the the update. I love the new um breakdown so you can really see kind of the actionable areas. Um I am curious. So the section that we use natural gas on. I'm just looking you know these um if you go to the slide

2:49:47 that has those different impacts broken down into three separate categories. >> The one that I showed or one from the >> the one that you showed already. Um >> sure. >> I wrote down the slide number on most of them but I didn't do it on that one. >> This one? Yeah, there we go. Okay, so on here, so we have, you know, obviously power um power delivery purchases is one of our biggest impacts. Um and we're going to have to tackle that in order to meet SD15's goals. Um so there's there's that piece. There's a few of the other ones that I'm I'm trying to tease out like where we can have actionable impacts, you know, sooner rather than later. Um where do we use natural gas? That's for heating in some of our

2:50:33 buildings. So this orange bar, >> the >> No, no, the other one over there. Sorry. >> Yes. So in the yellow bar, the natural gas, we use natural gas for space and building and water heating at Rock, the one facility. We used to use it also at headquarters. Um but when we sold that facility, that uh usage dropped off. So we do use some natural gas for this uh space and water heating here. and IP >> the IP natural gas is in the orange bar. Um that's uh the owned electricity generation. We own the generator at that facility and they use uh some natural gas along with black liquor in their biomass facility. >> Yeah, I would be curious to see what the breakdown is of the p the power delivery

2:51:20 purchases. I think you had it on a another slide potentially, but where those purchases come in. Um anyway uh to that that piece. So we have the BPA contract that is coming up any minute now. That will be when >> I actually forgot to me. Sorry. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> I I did forget to mention that in items from general manager. It's it's only a $3 billion contract that I ended up signing >> um I would say a week and a half ago. It was counter signed by Bonavville last week. So, it is now official and we we'll have some kind of picture or something with the board. I I just didn't have time to prepare for that, but um it's a minor detail. >> Well, okay. So, that happens. So, that

2:52:06 that contract I mean for the next 25 30 years, how long is it again? 25 years. >> 2044. >> 2044. Okay. So until 2044, so just shy of our 2050 mark, most of our purchases are set in there then, but we have the market purchases are upside of it. How does the BPA contract impact this? So I know we had we had criteria in there to meet our SD15 goals. >> There there is certain degree of of flexibility. If you think about um Bonavville being roughly 80% of our delivered power supply, that is still going to be the case. there is some degree of flexibility and some degree of relying on our our own resources and potentially um market purchases. It

2:52:53 doesn't it doesn't sort of inherently lower that. That would have to be a conscious decision. the and it it's not as as obvious as just saying well reduce your market purchases and that um it may reduce our carbon but in some ways could inject carbon into the region depending on when and how we're buying and selling resource if that makes sense. If we're selling Carmen Smith into the market in the morning and buying solar in the afternoon and we might do that for financial reasons as well. um those that solar resource when solar is present we're getting a marketbased purchase even though it might be cleaner at that

2:53:38 particular time. So this is this is one that um will still be you know 80% Bonavville and there'll still be some balancing that that we have to go through but it is something to to consider in in part of our conscious decision- making. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, if we're trying to answer your questions about SD15 and and SD2 and what I mean, whether we combine them or and how we achieve that, I mean, I don't want to wait until 2050 to do that. But I also don't think that we can if we're going to hit the goal of 20 of, you know, hitting the reduction that we need. So, um, but it's also driven by a lot of these other contracts that are long-term contracts. So it would be wonderful to me to know what

2:54:24 areas we can actually mitigate and what those kind of you know places are where we can tackle and what the size of those um are. So um I'm personally interested in you know combining the two policies just for the sake of you know ease of use and clarity for staff and others. I think that would be beneficial if others are supportive of that. Um, and in doing that, figuring out what maybe those actionable steps are and kind of clearly delineating out what those are, so there's a clear road map for, you know, this is what we think we can do by this time. Okay, now let's hit it. Um I am curious too. So on the the biomass

2:55:10 side of things. >> So the other slide that you just showed showed that we had roughly 100,000 um if you go back to the other one. So for 3% biomass, but then the other slide that we were just on this one says 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Another report that came out said something like the um the Senica biomass generation, it claimed that it was over 200,000 tons and this is all of our purchases. Don't we purchase all the power from Senica via the contract that we also just signed. >> So there's a couple of key distinctions. Okay, >> this chart here only represents what we call anthropogenic greenhouse gas

2:55:56 emissions or human caused from fossil fuels. In GHD protocols, biomass emissions associated with um you know the biological carbon cycle are treated separately and they're reported separately. So we have emissions associated with that, but they're not considered as causing uh human-caused climate change. uh the carbon gets sequestered in the plant materials as the plant grows and they're just released to the atmosphere when the plant materials are combusted. So >> because whether or not we would have done something with it burning it versus >> decomposing but decompose it's a wash. So that's why it's not counted. It's not an additional impact. >> So this set of emissions results is just those fossil fuel emissions. We do calculate the emissions from biogenic

2:56:41 sources and report those separately, but I didn't include that in this chart here. >> Okay, great. I just wanted, you know, for clarity because I know there's a lot of people who care about this. Wanted to have that. Um, >> and can I just make one other quick note based on the earlier conversation. So this large orange bar, it includes both e-webs, unspecified market purchases that we make on our trading floor in short-time and and um realtime trades. Uh that helps us balance our portfolio. It also includes BPA's unspecified market purchases. So and we have some influence on those things. There are maybe some things that we could influence but we don't have direct control over the power resources on the market and we also don't have direct control on what commodities are

2:57:29 specified all the way back to their source. This is the problem of lack of a system built to track greenhouse gas emissions through the entire electricity system. Um, sometimes power is just assumed to be a commodity and if you need it, you buy it and it's not tracked all the way back to its source. And in that case, that's how these protocols tell you how to address that in carbon accounting. But there could be ways for us to try and get more specificity on where the power comes from. Uh, and those are some of the ways that I I talked about in the lessons learned that we could address that big orange bar. But we have a lot more control that we could do for the other orange uh you know the the owned electricity generation source than we do on the thing that we have you know some

2:58:14 influence on but less control. >> Great. Okay. I have other questions but I'll let others go. >> Okay Tim. >> Yeah. Thank you chair. Um I uh had a quick question on this particular slide. So uh own generation electricity generation you said that that's IP. Is that a all IP or is that or are there other owned electricity generation sources? >> That is our only owned electricity generation source that has fossil fuel. >> Got it. Thank you. >> So we have many other owned electricity generation sources but none of them have a fossil fuel attached to them. >> Got it. Thank you. That I appreciate that. That was my thought and I wanted good clarification on that. So thank you. Um I uh I'll be just totally frank.

2:59:01 I'll be well I'll be Tim but uh [laughter] man it took me 11 months to make that joke. Here we are um talking about uh ways to reduce uh emissions for power delivery in particular and mentioning bofuel I made me bristle uh a little bit that feels more of a lateral move than than a a great step in a good direction. Um so I I'm I'm deeply cautious about that one in particular. Um, so I I just wanted to mention that and say that out loud just so that that's heard. I also wanted to highlight under the to answer your question on the combination of the two policies. I think it's um fine. I understand the reasoning behind it. I would be a little bit anxious around

2:59:47 losing some of the nondescriptive or actionable items that's under SD2. So, for example, you know, it highlights transportation um but also highlights employee education and that that's not a greenhouse gas emission of educating employees, but that's still an important value. So, um I I meant to look at our other policies to see if there would maybe be much more of like a a split of like values and uh a better place for for those particular um you know, non-trackable uh policies that are set. But I I'm I'm fine with that. I don't see uh I don't feel I'm ambivalent. I don't feel one way or another too strongly. Um but I am I do want to um also highlight uh one of the policies

3:00:34 that I think is important is particularly the customer decarbonization. Um I would like to set a I mean I would like to set a target for I think all three of these and I think that that's really important conversations to have for the SD15. Um, but I am I was shocked when I joined the board and I'm still shocked to see that the city of Eugene has a climate action plan that has very specific goals 100% electrification by I think 2045 and that sort of matches up with our own timeline as well. And so being able to match with our community partners what they're doing and just uh coordinate and jump on the bandwagon makes sense to me. So, um, those would be some of the the conversations and discussions I'd like to have about that

3:01:20 in particular. >> Yeah. To be clear, I think that the climate recovery ordinance from the city of Eugene is focused on an emissions reduction goal per year that equivalent equivalates to about 7.6% emissions reduction for the community as a whole per year. And then they also have a fossil fuel reduction goal. Um, and those are covered by the climate action plan. EW is a participant in that. We um made some voluntary commitments as part of that process and in a previous presentation on the climate guide book we showed how we're um 86% I think complete there and as we get the AMI infrastructure in place then that will be 100% complete with the commitments we made there

3:02:06 >> to answer the three questions for today um I would say if there's a way to combine SD2 and SD D15 into one policy, that'd be great. Um, without it being too unwieldy, whatever makes sense. Doesn't really matter to me. Um, as long as the policy is solid. If you feel that it should be one, if staff feels it should be one and can work it in a way, that would be fine with me. Um, I do think that gaining clarity regarding SD15 should could be a priority in 2026 should be a priority. I think that um since Frank will only be our general manager for

3:02:52 maybe half that year and then we also have two board positions that are coming up for reelection. I think that um it would be a good time to solidify what this board thinks about um our climate policy, >> right? Staff turnover and board turnover are both, you know, on on the mind to decide the priority and the timeline. So, thank you for bringing that up. >> Thank you. Um I you know my questions earlier about cost and implementation. I'm okay with combining it as long as it does, but I'm still worried about trying to I mean, if you were asking us or me to give you a grade on our

3:03:37 accomplishments, I'd give an A+ based on what you've done. And so you you talked about, okay, increasing the electric fleet. Well, think about electric fleet during another ice storm. You know, those guys are out there 16 and 18 hours. Cars don't run, electric vehicles don't run out. We don't have a way to charge them. And I mean, we have to think about what we're doing. and their electric vehicles are much more expensive than than others. And so it's all cost, it's all rates and it's death by a thousand cuts. And so I want to make sure that we we are so close 93 94 and our goals 95 and we're already you know five years ahead of our our GHD reduction on operations. I want to make sure that we don't continue to uh you know chase chase a nickel with the dollar and uh and and because rates are

3:04:22 so important I think to that and so I'm okay with what you're proposing but I just I'm still going harping back to the cost. Um I just don't want to do it so we can check a box and offsets to me um are not the great I mean I when the city couldn't meet their goal and they went and bought a forest up in Washington. I don't think that's to me meeting their carbon goal. I mean, they they could check the box and say, "Oh, yeah, we met it, but how did we do it? We bought a forest and we said, "No, we're gonna going to cut it." That is that's not playing by the rules in my opinion. >> I completely understand there are many people who support your same position. One of the benefits of looking at different instruments uh and again it all depends on what the board is trying

3:05:08 to achieve and there's many options to do it but it does provide an opportunity to look outside of the industry that you're operating in at other opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions uh on planet earth right and so because this is a global problem you can find the lowest cost way to address emissions whereas if you bind yourself only to your particular industry the cost could be even higher. And so it depends on what the board is trying to accomplish and it depends on um you know how much you want to spend. So um those are the questions that would need to be addressed depending on which method you would select uh eb to move forward with taking action. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Um can you pull pull up the go two

3:05:57 >> goal two? >> Yeah. And then this goes to combining the two. I'm not in favor of combining the two. I think goal two, if you look at the things on the left of goal two, watershed protection, there there's some things in there that to me goal two is kind of this is the direction we want to go. And goal 15 is like this is the levers we're going to use to get there. And so for me, I I don't know about combining the two of them. I'm not I'm I'm not convinced on that. Second qu question that I have is we're talking about using a new goalpost basically with your your new things.

3:06:43 Did you apply those metrics to 2010? >> All the way back to 2010. >> Okay. So that so it's not >> have a baseline. >> So would the baseline changed as well? If if we wanted to set new policy goals related to a baseline, we could do that. >> Okay. Yeah. Because that would be important because I don't want to say we're setting our we're bringing all of these things in to and then our baseline doesn't have those things that we're measuring against. So I want to make sure we're we're comparing apples to apples. Um >> like to do that, too. >> Yes. So that is something that's important to me. As far as the timeline, I hear what you I I can lean into what Mindy was saying as far as having Frank

3:07:30 and the board members that are here. That's a that's a compelling argument. But then I also heard people in public testimony saying we may have a general manager that may think differently and may have different ideas. And since we are at a point where we're very close to what we want to be at for 2026, leaning in and h and giving that legacy to a new general manager when he may have things that we haven't even thought about or directions that he may want to go or move this this thing and then we have set a policy that may hamstring him. Since we are so so far

3:08:15 along, I don't know if that's you know there it's six of one half dozen to the other. So that's I'm not I'm not there yet. >> I just want to point out that our next general manager could be a she. Yes. >> Or there you go. >> Okay. All right. All right, Sonia, we'll give you a couple more minutes and then Frank and then too. >> Okay, be really quick. Uh, the fugitive refrigerants, there are alternatives out there. Do we use them and we're still having impact or do we not use those alternative refrigerants? >> The reason those are zero in 2024 are just because there were no leaks recharged in that year. Okay,

3:09:02 >> it doesn't mean that there aren't leaks happening, but they were small enough that they didn't require our alarm system to go off and require a recharge. The way those um both the SF6 fugitive emissions and industrial gases in our building and vehicle HVAC systems work is that they usually leak very slowly over a period of time. And we calculate them just on the years that they experienced a recharge because we assume that whatever was recharged back into it is what was equivalent of the leak. >> But but there are different types of refrigerants that are out there that have lower GHD emissions. Do we already utilize those types of refrigerants? >> Not yet. Do we um SF6 is a a chemical that's used in our um substations? It's

3:09:47 uh it reduces arcing in our equipment. Um the technology that is being used there or piloted in some utilities is to use air breakers. Um that is not um at a place where e webb feels that it's a mature enough technology to try and do that. Okay. >> Uh and so we are watching that closely and uh following the work that has been done in other utilities but it's at our size and scale it's it's not appropriate for prime time quite yet. Um at the building and vehicle usage we use very small amounts of other refrigerants. Um there are some uh policies at the EPA level to replace those over time. We have not changed any of those refrigerants. They're they're specific to the equipment that we use so far. >> That reminds me um this doesn't take in

3:10:33 account any of the concrete impact from the scope 3 missions. Correct. No, we have focused our efforts to date on what the policy says and it says to focus on scope one and two emissions from our operations and the um advancements that we've brought into the methodology to focus on our supply chain have focused on our power supply chain. So far we do um many times as you can see on SD2 looking at environmental planning um and triple bottom line analysis we do take that seriously and when we're doing major capital projects such as the Leeberg uh decommissioning analysis we did an analysis on all the alternatives to identify which ones would have more significant GHG impacts and at that moment identify where mitigation opportunities might be in a particular

3:11:19 project. We don't do that. scope scope three analysis on all of the things that we buy in a given year because it doesn't match with the timeline on when you could take action. >> Okay. >> But that is something that if the board chose through a a revision of the policy that we could certainly add. You could provide direction to staff that you would like to see that included in the future. >> Um and then to the point about combining the two. I mean the only reason I thought that it would be helpful I mean this does talk about GHD reduction. I also think that if there are, you know, potential impacts that we call out, there could be some alignment with, you know, our water and energy conservation or wershed protection. I mean, there there are things that in each of those categories that align with GHD reduction and pollution prevention and, you know,

3:12:05 um solid waste, water mitigation, like all those things are kind of interconnected. And yes, there there are different goals um with them, but it seemed like to me it still seemed like it could be combined if that was the appropriate path. Um I'm fine with what makes sense from a staff perspective on clarity. I think it's mostly for staff to be able to use it as an actionable tool. So, whatever makes the most sense um from a staff perspective to use as an actionable tool, I'm fine with that. Um and then my last question was on um can you go to slide I had slide 43. Can >> you tell me the slide name? >> Um I don't know. It's It just says number 43 down at the bottom. >> Um so my slides are changed from the

3:12:51 order of your packets. So >> SD here it's power generation. >> Great. Um >> if that's the correct >> I don't know. It was on your it was on what's showing up on the screen. So it's not when it's in my packet. It's on the slide up there. >> Yes. This one. >> Yes. Okay. So this is so I just want to make sure. So these are the percentages of power that are used not the GHG emissions. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. >> This is percentage of megawatt hours. >> Percentage of megawatt hours. Okay. >> Deemed to e-web's load by fuel type, not greenhouse gas emissions. >> Okay. So, if we go and and purchase on the market, the Northwest Power Pool, is

3:13:36 that kind of the mix that we get on a market purchase? Or it really just depends because we could go out on the market and purchase solar, for example, or we could go purchase wind, for example. I I'm I'm still a little fuzzy on whether or not we purchase the the mix of resources or if we can target our market purchases at a particular source. >> We could do both. it's possible. Uh and so if we have a specified source, we have identified that and put it to its fuel type >> and if it was an unspecified source, then it gets attributed to the resource average associated with the region. >> Okay. >> Um so that's how this chart is calculated. It's not a GHG chart. It's a percent by fuel type for the amount of

3:14:22 energy that goes to our customer load. >> Okay. >> All right. Great. Thanks. That was it for me. >> Tim. >> Yeah, commissioners. I was just going to mention I can probably follow up with some of you individually. I think the dilemma that we've had is the trade-off between um providing some clarity at this point given all of your backgrounds and management's background in this issue versus the tradeoff of potentially new board members and new management setting a direction going forward. And that's that's a there's there's pros and cons to to both of those. There's also some some clarity um between the the two policies. Um I don't have a a a strong preference one

3:15:09 way or the other. I know that we've navigated some some challenging issues where there's lots of tradeoffs that we have to talk about, which is this is one of those types of subjects. Um but I'll I'll do some polling offline to try to get a little bit more clarity around how you view the um sort of a new position, new board go forward versus where we are now and and sort of leveraging the strengths we have versus opening up new opportunities because that's really kind of the dilemma that we're talking about. >> Thank you, chair. Um I meant to mention this at the top. I think uh commissioners, we received a letter from a few local organizations that were commenting on the greenhouse gas emissions in addition to um some of the

3:15:55 public testimony we heard tonight. So, uh I think it came in before we any of us had an opportunity to to read that, but I do want to highlight that for future uh conversation. And they asked some similar questions that we're asking tonight. So um secondly I uh I uh I guess like what what is your vision of what a combination of these policies look like if any? >> I have many [clears throat] thoughts about that. I don't know if um I mean Frank do you want me to go into any of that detail tonight or is that more appropriate for a future future session? I can also re ask this to maybe not because I'm recognizing it's nine

3:16:40 o'clock at night. So, um, uh, it sounds correct or incorrect. You have a specific vision that you're looking at for a combination of these both these two policies. >> Um, again, it all comes back to what the board is intending to accomplish. I don't know if when you wrote a 95% carbonfree policy, you were actually meaning fuel type or if you actually meant to try and get to an emissions reduction goal. If you did mean to get to an emissions reduction goal, that is not the way we're currently measuring that. If you wanted to get to that, then we would there could be ways to rephrase that to give clearer guidance to staff on how we would measure that and how we would measure the adverse potential impacts

3:17:27 related to potentially cost. Um, and how we could address what that could look like on an annual basis. Um I do think having you know you also have the carbon neutrality piece of the operational emissions. Those operational emissions as you saw tonight are very small in comparison to everything else. if you know there are opportunities depending on if you want to get to that there are opportunities for direct emissions reductions but those tend to include things like switching fossil fuels for bofuels which has been one of the main ways we've addressed our fleet emissions to date. Um, if that's off the table or if that's something that gives you pause and offsets our challenge,

3:18:12 then we would need to have a serious conversation on what it would actually look like to get to neutrality, right? Um, and again, it's all dependent on what you all want to do, but 25 years from now, it seems like a long time before we have another milestone, and we're already far enough along that, you know, my recommendation might be to do something in the interim. But those again, it's all dependent on what you as a board are trying to accomplish and how you would like to see that addressed. >> Thank you. Yeah, I um uh I am hearing you on what you're saying. I did want to add my voice of support of caution around offsets um because I think my

3:18:57 understanding is and my perspective is when you're purchasing an offset, you're doing so because you're unable to lower your greenhouse gas emission. So, you're purchasing that offset to to to do that. And so, that feels like a concession that we're unable to do that. And I don't think that we've hit that point yet. Um And uh >> can I add one point on that? >> Sure. >> I would just say that we could have a much more robust conversation about what an offset is, what it means, what claims you can make when it's associated, what you get from that purchase, and how they could work in a longer session. And I would just say that there might be some additional details that we'd want to have at a future session. Uh final point that I want to make is I

3:19:43 am I I'd be and I I'll support however my colleagues feel but I would be interested in in a sort of midway marker for uh uh you know another another goal to set as a board. Um primarily just for our board and future boards to to acknowledge and to keep a goal out for 2050 feels like a long way away. It also isn't. But uh you know recognizing that 10 years from now this board and staff might look very different um and so making sure that they are staying on track with with the goals that we understand them to be now I think is important check. >> All right. Thank you for the discussion. >> Right. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> All right. Next item is future board

3:20:29 agendas. Um I wanted to bring something up here. Uh we got a memo regarding the uh potential or not the potential the uh ballot measure that's going to be moving forward next uh March the watershed bill of rights. I want to do a kind of a headnot around here to see if we want to put that on an agenda to find out get more information on it so us as a board may want to take a position. Staff can't take positions on this. they can give us information, but I think it would be something that would behoove us to uh have information so that we can see what the impact is on our utility and on our customers. Does that sound like something that you would like to see in

3:21:14 the next month or two before the election? >> Okay. All right. We'll put that in there. Try and figure out when we can squeeze that in when we have our our uh agenda setting. We might have to actually have an agenda setting meeting instead of Looks good. Um, okay. Any anybody else have anything that you want to throw on an agenda or have us talk about? >> No, I just have a question about KPI. Are we going to I've been getting a lot of questions about why did we invest in smart meters because they've seen no benefit or anything? So can in the next KPI are we going to have an update on that about you know we spent millions and they've been sitting there for five or six years and and the group of people that are asking me they they they want

3:22:00 to know what's the benefit why did we spend millions and millions of dollars and we don't other than maybe some water leak detection. So we don't need to answer it now but just is that coming up in the KPI? Not in a KPI. No, the the benefits from smart meters will come when we get into time of use, peak reduction. We're talking multiple multiple millions of dollars of optimization between supply and delivery. On the electric side, that is the significant driver and it's way more than any operational benefit would ever be. >> Well, and just if it's the timing and the technology, there's kind of a concern. >> The the other pieces of that commissioner are the ones that we are working on. um the EES. So, we changed our customer system. We're we're looking

3:22:46 at rate design. We are likely to focus some of the initial time of use on um or recommend time of use go into some of the large industrial opportunities which would which would um be probably a bigger bang for the buck initially than residential which is an aggregated approach. But all these are things we're talking about um to bring to the board as far as 2026 and where we want to go with that. But measuring a specific KPI probably >> I didn't see anything on the agendas for the entire year about smart meters and and in that. So maybe I'm either I missed it or you're going to put it on there. >> No, we're not going to talk about smart meters specifically. We're going to talk about the goals and where they where the b how they would contribute to the benefit. Okay.

3:23:31 >> Okay. Board wrap-up. on the table. >> Yeah, >> I would love to see that data just to echo that the benefit of the I mean outside of that just you know I know we have operational savings attached too it would be good to see it. Okay. Thanks. >> All right. That's 910 for the journ.